Slashdot Mirror
UserLinux Continues Debate Over GUI
An anonymous reader writes "Following up the earlier Slashdot item on this, LinuxWorld is carrying both sides of the discussion as to whether UserLinux GUI should be GNOME only, as Bruce Perens last week decided "by fiat," or include KDE."
how bout a slashdot poll? 1. Gnome 2. Kde 3. Command line 4. Wine version of XP 5. Cowboyneil is my interface
"It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
If we did a Slashdot POll, the winning choice would inevitably be:
All I have is a 9600bps serial line YOU INSENSITIVE BASTARD.
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
If you don't like the distribution, don't use it. Simple as that. Keeping the OS simple and maintainable as a laudable goal, and I would find it difficult to argue with them just because my personal choice GUI wasn't included (though neither Gnome or KDE are *my* personal choice :-)).
The beauty of open source is that anyone can do this -- if you really disagree with their choice on which GUI to include, make your own distribution and include just KDE with it.
Then it should include both so USERs can choose.
I sense another Holy War incoming over this. In all honesty, while having a single interface to deal with would be easier, I don't feel the GNOME ca claim to be it. Nor can KDE, but shortening the field by including only one in this project is a bit anti-competitive, and OSS has allways thrived on the competition between similar projects.
An infinite number of monkeys will eventually come up with the complete works of
I really don't get it. UserLinux seems targeted towards a very specific goal that KDE cannot meet because of the Qt widget set. That's that, right? What is the big deal? Why does it matter to KDE ppl anyway? Why is it so important a matter that it has required months of discussion to no end except bitching and fantasy conceptions of what KDE will someday be?
Because that isn't enought. Side 1 doesn't want Side 2 to get 'ahead'.
Who side 1 and side 2 are in this discussion is up to you.
They're targeting the enterprise market -- defined explicitly by Peren's whitepaper as (paraphrasing) the market that Red Hat gets $$$ in support fees for.
I just don't see companies who want that level of support settling for "here's our linux distro, and if you want support, uh... here's a list of 3rd party providers." Remember LinuxCare? They're still around, but only because they moved away from providing third-party support solutions.
Once upon a time there was a project named KDE, a friendly bunch they were. They used a toolkit named "Qt" because they didn't have the luxury of using anything else. They could either use Motif which everyone agreed was crap or Qt. There was no GPL toolkit like GTK+ back then (it was around.. just not nearly as advanced or stable).
Then comes this arrogant troll, named Miguel. He writes to the town's newspaper (Slashdot.org) about the evils of KDE. He claims that KDE is dependent on Qt and that Qt is EVIL. It is EVIL because it is not GPL. It is EVIL because it can take over the desktop just like MICROSOFT. And we know how EVIL MICROSOFT is, right? REALLY EVIL.
This was the opening statement for the initiation of the GNOME project. Like Linus' famous Linux announcement on Usenet, this was Miguel's famous announcement to the world about GNOME--a flame about KDE.
This gets them over reinvention hurdle #1 (reinventing an already _GPL_ desktop.. which KDE was ALWAYS GPL, but it didn't seem like it because Miguel spewed PR crap that said KDE was anything but GPL). The drones (like you) flocked to GNOME thinking "wow what a _great_ idea!@# free software at last!@#" or perhaps "KDE is teh suck" (notice the misspelled "the") or perhaps "in soviet russia KDE uses YOU." I can't remember what kind of sheepisms existed back then, but you get the idea.
During the next few months, GNOME magically catches up to KDE. How this magic is performed is quite simple. On GNOME hacker mailing list I was witness to some extraordinary feats that would make even the most insane coder wince. A famous GNOME hacker (who still is) said something along the lines of this:
"A GNOME spreedsheet you want Miguel? Don't worry. The way things are looking, I can hack one out in a few days. We will borrow from X, Y, and Z projects since they have most of the functionality we need. It will be a matter of fitting them all together."
Thus, Gnumeric was born. And I am dead serious on this too. This is exactly what they did for _all_ GNOME sub-projects, which is why the code is such an utter mess today and will never stand the test of time.
As for the interface sucking... GNOME has that completely covered. In the time I watched over GNOME, it changed fundamental parts of its interface no less than, I'd say, 5+ times. _Nothing_ adheres to the recommended style-guide which was there from pretty much day one. And _nothing_ still does adhere to it, except perhaps projects which should almost not be considered seperate from GNOME.
Integration of GNOME software is nil. This is what attracted me to GNOME initially. Miguel promised _integrated_ applications. Software that "just works." This has never happened and never will. It was all PR designed to help Miguel build a company around something he still has control over. Thus, Helix Code was born. Which later became Ximian.
In conclusion, GNOME is a failure. GNOME's goal was a desktop for *ix that grandma could use. As someone else recommended.. try Ximian "they have it all worked out." Which is very much the point--to fill Miguel's wallet (reality hurts, boys and girls). GNOME is only a success if you consider success to be pissing all over KDE (which had no knowledge or connection to GNOME, until Miguel made it GNOME vs. KDE), creating a wasteland of code, luring in the Slashdot crowd with PR after PR stunts. It has nothing to do with their "interface" at all. It's strictly politics that got them whatever they have today.
I prefer gnome to KDE. And I see that KDE is more advanced.
;)
by Bruce's decision I see some hope for gnome to speed their development. That's why I think it is good.
I also hope that decision about mozilla and gumeric + OOffice will solve their greatest problem: its own widget set. (I prefer galeon to mozilla - mainly because of native widget set == less bloated)
to conclude: I think that Bruce made the best possible decissions, and I really hope it will be a great success.
(btw, sawfish is my WM, not gnome, which for me is too bloated
#
#\ @ ? Colonize Mars
#
Don't you keep up with poll choices you insensitive clod?
what are the reasons for choosing gnome instead of KDE? i've read some of the white papers but i haven't seen anything that says why they are choosing gnome. i think KDE is a better desktop and should be included instead (i used to be a hardcore gnome user until KDE 3 and gnome 2 came out then i switched and haven't looked back), but if it doesn't fit with their model, it doesn't fit with their model
Maybe because Gnome is being pushed commercially by Novell, and Red Hat. It would make it easier for developers to only have to use one toolkit, instead of two. It would also bring support costs down. Since Novell, and Red Hat already went Gnome, it wouldn't make sense to go against the run of the mill.
Each to their own.
kde, gnome libs should be core libs for some distros. At least that way people can decide which wm to use.
Do you remember when you were a kid and if you could not decide on something, your parents would make the choice for you.
please dont start the KDE vs Gnome war... KDE and Gnome should both do everything they can to get better while sharing between them as much as it's possible without removing their individuality. . I would prefer to have not one but two great desktop environments to choose from.
Try to find a commercial Gtk app. After googling, you'll perhaps find some from Ximian ( which can arguably be ruled out ), and perhaps a few more. Now try to find a commercial Qt app. You'll find hundreds ( including high-profile ones from Adobe and others ).
This means that commercial developers are willing to pay for a quality toolkit, as much so on Linux as on other OSs. Free software folk needn't worry either, as Qt on X is free as in both.
And most important: non-programmer users don't care what GUI toolkit their application is built upon. The GUI issue is a developer, not user, discussion.
*raises hand* I'm a user, and I care what GUI toolkit my application is built on. I prefer KDE. It looks more appealing to me. It seems to operate better on my system. I like the included programs packaged that can be used only on KDE. However, I don't care which GUI these guys choose, because I won't be using UserLinux anyway.
The future of building interfaces for applications is with interpreted languages - not statically typed verbose languages like C, C++ and Java. It's far easier to prototype a GUI in an interpreted language in a 1/3 the lines of code and the speed hit is not significant.
So, is there a Lua binding for GTK?
BP has stated explicitly that the only reason for choosing GNOME over KDE is the fact that GNOME is LGPL and therefore more friendly to proprietary software developers.
My suggestion is to make KDE the default GUI due to its technically superior API, toolkit, and framework, but include the GTK+ libraries for proprietary developers if they want - we can even hack GTK+ to assume KDE's widget styles so it looks consistent.
I'll be the sole vote for WindowMaker. Small, fast, compatible with KDE & Gnome etc..
Trolling is a art,
Sigh. It's all here: On the GUI Selection in UserLinux.
One reason may be the 1,200 USD per developer to develope closed source apps for KDE.
Gnome doesn't have such a charge.
So it's anti-competitive to prefer one option for doing the job that you want done? Was I anti-competitive for un-selecting the KDE checkbox when I did my minimalist install? As I see it, this is a prime example of competition that they can thrive on - they both have to prove their case and one gets included - if thats not competition then I don't see what is.
Why do people always have to argue that you should use this or that? The beauty of it all is that you can choose, if you do not like a distribution that ships with only Gnome then don't use it. If it's based on debian you might just as well install debian and KDE (if that's what you like) or grab a source-dpkg or a dpkg and install KDE on UserLinux afterwards. I realize that many see the need for a common environment with less choice. Mostly to make it easier to move from some other OS to GNU/Linux. But those who want KDE in UserLinux are probably competent enough to get it on their own or use another distribution, they probably won't have a problem choosing between Gnome and KDE. :)
Arguing can be interesting and sometimes good, but this just seems like a pointless discussion to me.
apt-get install kde.
For those users stuck inside the default gui and without knowledge of the command line (the real target audience of "UserLinux"), I am sure there will be a front-end installer to add new packages. Just include alternate guis as optional packages to be added at the users' descretion. Why stop at KDE? You could include any number add-in optional packages that are not "default". Anyway..., multiple packages that all do the same thing (like guis) will simply increase the complexity, bloat, and confusion for the target audience. Select one good one, and they can add others if they so desire.
This whole debate sounds to me like what the BSDers call "bikeshedding". Arguing ad nauseam over minor details like colors because the deep-down architectural stuff is beyond intelligent discussion for most folks.
Please ! Stop to feed the troll !
.doc is the winner of the .sxw/.abw war !
The mailing list becomes really full of this old and crappy Troll...
There's no place for two DE in UserLinux... So there's a choice. If KDE was choosen, all gnome's fans will stand up !
I talk a lot about the Desktop and I continue to receive comments about that.
Well ! everyone has is own choice.. We don't have to speak so long about it !
Who is the winner of the Gnome/KDE war ? MS Windows of course ! Like
Ploum.net.
Back on topic. I have to say it is really sad to see KDE left out (and I say this as a long time gnome user). KDE is definitely the more mature and enterprise ready project. But then I can see Bruce's point of view. It doesn't make sense to support both, and Qt's licensing could easily put off commercial/proprietary developers.
Had the KDE and GNOME teams not thumbed their noses at each other for so long, and actually worked on interoperability issues (remember all the bitching when Redhat released bluecurve), all this could have been avoided. I mean, in that case it wouldn't have been difficult to support both.
Still, its very early in the game and there's miles to go, and both projects can compete if they work with a unified vision. Its encouraging to see that they're doing just that. The KDE proposal, for example, was big on integration (GTK, OO.o, mozilla).
Also, nobody is stopping a KDE/debian enterprise collaboration, which seems to be on the cards. On the whole the commercial interest from the big vendors has helped greatly. So while the userlinux decision is definitely a sad thing, the future looks bright.
Uhh.., looks like this is my 500th post! Excuse me while I go out and get a breath of fresh air :)
Read more carfully then. It's because of licence issues.
Gnome is the BEST!
No, the real question is: why do any of us give a rat's ass what GUI a vaporware Linux distro uses? Are we suddently experiencing a shortage of prepackaged binary distros or easy-to-build source-based distros? Personally, if it had only KDE I wouldn't touch it, except if it were Knoppix. And Knoppix is already Knoppix, so I don't need UserLinux to be Knoppix for me. I use one K-program in my daily life, KMail, and even that doesn't really excite me-- I'd switch but the momentum for doing so is just not quite there. So I think your assertion that KDE beats GNOME hands down is not a "fact", rather an "opinion".
For my part, I think GNOME beats KDE by a long shot because it is based on C and not C++. The number of competetent C developers far outweighs the number of competent C++ developers. C is certainly more common on the rest of a Linux system. Finally, I am given to understand that in terms on internationalization support and various accessibility functions, GNOME is ahead of KDE (or was momentarily). I think there are a lot of factors that you may not have had to consider when choosing a GUI that someone attempting to make an "enterprise" distro would think of.
If someone wants to recomplile their own version of UserLinux, can't they? Why not start a spinoff project - call it UserLinux - K Edition or whatever? This was done with Knoppix (Gnoppix).
Seriously, what's the big dealio? It's all open source!
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
The Linux that gains acceptance will be wrapped around one way of doing things. This is how business works. The beautiful thing about this is that a major corpororate/development workstation distribution can rise that major software developers can target and business can point to as their distribution of choice due to it's uniformity. There will always be the ability to roll your own and as long as people like Mr Volkerding want to keep alternate distributions going we will have other choices too.
He raises some good points about Mr. Perens.
WHen businesses make apps .. they usually prefer one api to program against. The commercial license for Qt stinks. You have to pay. That raises the bar for entry. Get over it. Think abou this the next time your boss complains about how much VS.NET costs or lays off another one of your co-workers because of lack of cash. Using Gnome is a good business move. This isn't about choice, this is about what the secretary is going to use, etc. Just let Bruce do what he wants .. if you dont like it .. start your own project.
KDE was there first. If you remember, GNOME came later and the only strong point about it was that it's the "GNU" choice. So for every good project out there, make a GNU-equivelent and get all the fame. Unfair. And moreover, i think gnome is too overbloated.
if you really disagree with their choice on which GUI to include, make your own distribution and include just KDE with it.
What's better, you can just apt-get kde on UserLinux.
Gnome will be the default, supported option. It's sensible to pick only one to "officially support", and let the hackers use the other to their heart's content.
Gnome is the better "supported" option because it doesn't require royalties for closed source development. This matters in countries where you can buy 3 developer months for single license of Qt (and for 3 developers, you need 3 licenses).
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
Simply because Qt is GPL and Gtk is LGPL. But in both cases, they are Free. Neither the kernel allows you to make a closed-source derivative kernel. So what ? Does it make Linux non Free ?
If you bothered to read the context of the discussion this is considered a negative in this case.
The stock FOOS arguments does not allways play even in Slashdot, sometime a little thinking is required.
Help fight continental drift.
Bruce Perens is making a GNOME-only linux distro. There's no reason for you to try to stop him. It isn't like there aren't 9000 other distros to choose from. Heck, it isn't even like there aren't ten to thirty other linux standardization movements similar to what Perens is doing.
Perens is convinced that in order to do what he wants this distro to do, he needs to choose one desktop environment and focus to it. He's also convinced that GNOME was the right choice for this. You know what? If he's wrong, all that will happen is that his distro will fail. Life will go on, and only Bruce Perens will have lost any time from it. In the meantime, if you like, you can go and make a KDE-only linux distro of your own, and it will succeed or fail or whatever.
I think Perens has an interesting little experiment going on here. If he's wrong, he's wrong, and if he's right, you know what? Once he has something good, you can take what he did, fork it, and add/insert KDE. Huzzah. In the meantime, who cares?
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
I'm an insensitive clod, you insensitive clod!
Etiquette is etiquette. He kills his mother but he can't wear grey trousers.
...until somebody makes a choice you disagree with, apparently.
We're all aware that the whole point of this "free software" exercise is that people are free to do whatever they want with it as long as they share, right? Even if other people think it's a bad decision?
Mike Hoye
I sense another Holy War incoming over this.
So you are saying that a holy war between Gnome and KDE will be coming? Proponents of various desktops trolling and flaming each other on Slashdot?
We are truly living interesting times.
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
One thing about GTK+ is that it is not restricted to C++ as QT. GTK+ has an object-oriented model but written in C with C++ bindings.
This gives you more choices than QT when programming.
Also, not being in contact with Trolltech (a company I am sure is very good), I assume the advancement of the QT library is in the hands of this company. With little input from other developers.
It is not only the license that has effect of how free your code is. Not when you take on account that the main base will evolve.
The kernel eg is free. But should you want to take it in a different direction, you will need to put in your own patches against the "clean" kernel. Others will not maintain it for you. But the lower parts are shared by multiple other applications that you dont have control of. So you dont have a free space where you can play freely. You need to make sure your version of a library or kernel, fits with most other apps using it.
Personally I use KDE. Acctually primarily for that big nice clock defaulting in your right bottom corner =). And it has a kick-ass window-manager.
Gnome is really pretty. But a little too bugged out at the moment. I see great potential there.
UserLinux moving towards gnome will make me have a little tear in my eye, since I love my kde-desktop so much. But I think it can be a good choice in the long run.
P.S. Everybody stating what kind of desktop-enviroment they prefer is not trying to be flaimbaiting. Given the nature of this article it is quite on topic giving pros and cons of our different enviroments.
And that is exactly what is happening. Well, we are not making our own distribution per se, and we're not repeating the mistake of begrudging the choice of some GNOME/GTK+ developers, but yes, we're moving on ;) If you read the position paper it is clear it wasn't meant as opposition at all. Just a solution to a problem.
Many of us were/are quite excited by Bruce's main proposition: a cost-sharing non-profit to support enterprise grade linux. We were upset to see the project make such a wrong-headed decision, but that's ok since the captain is determined to make it and we aren't obliged to go with him.
Nuts. Choices like that cost money. If a business lets their employees choose either KDE or Gnome, then that business has to spend money supporting both KDE and Gnome. Why would a sensible business do that?
Business users, regardless of the operating system and regardless of the "desktop environment", typically use a very few applications, day in and day out. The rest of their "desktop" sits there, unused.
A smart business will lock down the desktops of their employees as much as possible, providing access to only the applications emloyees are authorized to use.
All this adolescent whimpering about "choice" is silly and completely beside the point.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
[Reads article.. geez, the things I admit to doing around here...]
Yep, I don't see any holy war material either, even tho I like KDE and detest Gnome. What Bruce says boils down to "All right, I'm tired of arguing about this, it's time to pick ONE (because this here project is partly about a focused direction instead of including everything plus a dozen kitchen sinks), and this here SDK is what I prefer for those there reasons. So we'll go with the desktop that matches this here SDK."
Perfectly reasonable as a project decision, even if I personally disagree with the choice it led to.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
I just wonder whether the reason that Bruce chose Gnome doesn't have something to do with Qt not being completely Free as in speech at first and the fact that Trolltech still puts out a non-free version for that other OS.
The fact that you linked to the original story doesn't make it not a dupe. The fact that linux world is now hosting the articles isn't news either. Please.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
The argument is this :
... and ...
SCO's bosses at Canopy controls Trolltech which controls Qt which controls KDE.
(do an nslookup of www.trolltech.com and www.kde.org to verify that last bit of logic)
The second contention that's a touchy subject is "Canopy controls Trolltech". Somebody is going to post a link to the trolltech site that says "only 8% of Trolltech is controlled by SCO/Canopy".
Then what the hell is Ralph Yarro (Darl Macbride's boss) doing on the board directors of Trolltech?
Link here for the skeptical.
The issues is real simple. If Canopy doesn't control Trolltech and Trolltech support Linux, then why haven't they
1) Come clean on exactly what their relationship is with Canopy
2) Voted Ralph Yarro of the board.
Trolltech should come clean. What is their relationship with Canopy? Does canopy have contractual rights to sit on the board? Do they owe debt to Canopy? Does Canopy have warrants on Trolltech? The silence is deafing. Speak Trolltech, tell us the truth.
The sad thing is QT is a good product. They could increase their respect and marketshare by telling the Canopy chumps to take a hike.
It has always seemed to me like KDE was a much more seamlessly integrated environment. From the start, Qt seemed like a superior toolkit which has accommodated significant feature bumps without drastic reorganization or need for rewriting apps. It's all fine and good to say "GNOME/GTK is now technically equivalent", but while Gnome has been catching up KDE is now floating out a whole flotilla of new features which are *specifically* targeted at the very enterprise audience that UserLinux says it is targeted at: kiosk mode, remote access like VNC, etc.
KDE just seems like the more technically advanced and "end-user oriented" of the two.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
As already pointed out. Gnome is business friendly. While Trolltech can flick through their sales records and make a good estimate of how many QT commercial apps there are. The Gnome licensing means that a company can write a commercial Gnome app without telling anyone, anything.(kind of like the BSD's). Don't be surprised if you get a rude surprise (like Microsoft gets a rude surprise with stealth Linux)
Errm, pardon me, but who in holy hell are these UserLinux people and who's this Bruce Perens guy?
Do I have to know them?
Am I wrong or have these people not yet managed to roll out even the faintest resemblence of a Linux distro which, if it were there, would be nothing but a sad and sorry rippoff of the Debian project. No?
As far as I can see from here there's nothing but a bunch of blockheads on mailing lists, webforums and slashdot generating nothing but a big heap of pointless media hype. Heavens, give us a break on people trying to generate by the most pointless of OSS discussions, KDE vs. GNOME.
I want my 5 minutes back.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Of greater moment is the choice of MySQL vs. PostgreSQL. Similar license issues pertain, and the differences in fundamental capability are much greater.
Perl/Tk. anybody else can do what they want :)
Neither KDE nor Gnome is ready to be the only choice . Both are very very good compared to what we had four or five years ago, and both offer developers quite a bit. Unfortunately, some Linux apps are dependent on QT and others on Gnome, and ultimately, it's a showstopper when joe user wants to install software and discovers they can't (or it is difficult) because of dependencies on a library that is part of KDE or Gnome and they don't have it and cant get it because the IT dept won't let them.
-- $G
ok, We gotta look at who this is targeted at-
/me puts on flame-proof armor.
a) enterprise systems
b) everyone else
c) geek elite
a) enterprise systems- ok, if we're going to look at business deployment, you gotta look at who will be using it- at the previous companies I worked for, there were 350 employees and about 20 tech-saavy ones(10 were IT related). The thing you gotta look at here is the other 330 employees probably have never heard of linux.
It has been my experience that completely clueless users prefer kde because it's more 'polished*' than gnome- it looks and feels like a cross between windows and macintosh. This makes the transition easier for people who don't want to dig to get something to work. This was the case with my wife and my younger brother.
* by polished I mean comes with the most user-level tools. Some may call this bloat, I call it usability for the unwashed masses.
b). everyone else- I'm curious what the actual breakdown of gnome/kde/box/other WM's actually is. From my limited experience, most people that I know use kde or fluxbox/blackbox. I can only think of two or three off the top of my head that use gnome. It would make sense to include the most popular. Obviously my own experience is probably not an accurate reflection of reality. I think slashdot should run a poll on this.
c). Geek elite - This is sort of silly, but they usually are the ones making the decisions. They'll use what they want and we'll like it until someone branchese off a tree of their own. That would completely defeat the purpose of this project.
The goal is to unite linux into one standardized distro to base things off of(IIRC). While I agree they need to watch out for bloating, there has to be a few exceptions. Otherwise this will just turn into another United Linux.
and we don't want that.
Looking for Book Reviews? Check out Literary Escapism.
Its just like you can simply download and install mozilla/firebird/opera/etc on any windows machine - internet explorer would only be the default. You dont have to use it.
UserLinux is targeted at the enterprise community. It probably (and hopefuly) be used by non-geeky types who simply use what is installed on their computers. You can see KDE go the same way as netscape if UserLinux ever becomes popular.
I am not sure what the right approach would be though. It makes sense for an OS to have a consistent "face" to a non-techie user. Though choice is great (and it is the reason why I use linux), it can be a hinderance for someone who is not inclined to try out 5 different window managers before she decides which one to use!!
Don't Panic
If UserLinux was an end user-oriented distribution, it surely had to pick KDE instead of Gnome, since KDE is the more integrated and stable GUI and is less messy in the architecture underneath (while Gnome/GTK has the lead in 3rd-party applications and, since recently, UI polish).
But for a "Free Enterprise Linux", there must not be any hidden costs for enterprise software development. This demands that libraries and SDKs should, where possible, be LGPL- or BSD-licensed, and not GPLed with for-pay-exceptions (like in Qt and MySQL).
Of course, the question remains if, due to its proprietary-friendly licensing and relatively conservative (=stable) design process, FreeBSD wouldn't be the better "Enterprise Linux" anyway. After all, the GPLed Linux kernel could be ditched in favor of a BSD kernel with almost the same arguments the UserLinux project now ditched the GPLed KDE libraries in favor of the LPGLed Gnome libraries.
But since Linux is all the hype even where it doesn't make too much sense (like in PDAs, for which Minix would be much better suited), it's good that the "UserLinux" project attempts to prevent that commercial distributors do the same horrible mistakes with Linux and their "enterprise" distributions the proprietary Unix vendors made in the 1990s.
-F
gopher://cramer.plaintext.cc http://cramer.plaintext.cc:70
And easy to program, too !
Owner of a Mensa membership card.
EvilWM
- To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion -
why is "choice" good. I am serious here. For me, and my coworkers, all non geeks, having a single OS/office , eg windows 2000/XP and office 2000/xp is great - a guy emails me a complex doc, and it opens without problems, all of the support staff everywhere know this system, I have never run across an unsupported peripheral piece of hardware (dont flame me - i am a typical user and this is my experience). It is really not clear to me that I, personnally, gain anything by having choice. True, I gain "freedom" to have my desktop do something else, but I loose "freedom" of interaction with others, the freedom have most of the IT people able to help me, the freedom to have plug and play (true, ms is not 100% great, but I will wager it will always be better then a fragmetned open source movement). I guess "choice" of "freedom" from the evil MS empire is just not that important to me. I turn off my computer at the end of the day, go home, and don't worry about it. It is just not that big a deal. And as for the "ethical" issues, as long as there are starving children in the world, worrying about the gates monopoly is way way down on the list As for the cost, if you factor in what I am paid, and how we work, and the cost of support and all that, at least for my company (we have a high proportion of high paid engineeers and scientists) the cost differential (only the diff is important right ?) is just not that important.
You could read the paper, or hear the real truth: many people find it hard to take seriously a desktop environment with a default girly pastel-colored look (Windows XP is an exception, for its ubiquity). People may want to push a more conservative-looking desktop towards businesses. Gnome is it. We wouldn't be having this conversation if KDE weren't so "Crayola" by default.
KDE is a fine desktop environment but it does not make or break a distribution.
That argument ignores the very distribution that UserLinux uses as its base which, unlike other popular GNOME-centric distributions, didn't even include/support KDE until QT was made GPL: Debian.
And speaking of treating other DE's as second class citizens, Debian and Redhat did it with KDE for the longest time(some may argue that the latter still does) but complaining about it ignores the fact that KDE-centric distributions treat GNOME in the same manner(arguments can be made that some still do.)
At least in my area of the market, lab equipment for scientist, a lot of stuff looses out in the market place - that is how markets work. Assuming software is a standard product, which behaves like refridgerators and pdas, one would expect most of the launched products to have a small market share. Of course, the loosers are bitter, but our current capitilist system really does not care about loosers - you are suppose to retrain yourself and move on
But darlings, we're competing amongst ourselves.
Cooperation is the solution.
It's kind of a bummer that Bruce went this route since I have a hunch that the projects would've merged within a couple of years.
And they got to, I mean really.
Using the same session managers, settling on a file manager, a configuration system, and so on.
Both QT and GTK could still be available as options for developers, if they were made compatible.
On competition.
The target audience for this distribution is businesses who want to roll out in-house software. They want 1 desktop, 1 toolkit and if possible no licensing costs. GNOME/GTK fits the bill.
The only thing that worries me a bit is that by leaving out KDE/QT he's cutting himself off from all applications that exist for KDE/QT. This might be a bit short-sighted. Because if you can choose between a GNOME/GTK only distribution and one which has GNOME as it's default, but also provides the KDE/QT libraries to run KDE/QT apps, I'll choose the second. I can still develop my apps using the free GTK toolkit, while leaveraging the existing KDE/QT apps where they are better than existing GNOME/GTK applications.
But in the end it is his distribution. He calls the shots. The KDE/QT people can go and fork his distribution adding in KDE/QT. It's Open Source after all.
Trolltech has been hornswaggeled into selling shares to Canopy. (SCO buddy)
If Canopy seizes control (Hostile takover), KDE is gone.
I can hear it now:
"KDE contains our QT IP, we want all your computers to be Fed-x'ed to Lindon Utah or we sue everyone."
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
There is no charge for Gnome apps which are closed source because the GPL won't allow you to distribute closed source Gnome applications to begin with. But I can distribute closed source applications with Qt if I pay for the license. Gnome does not allow that choice.
This just goes to show the troubles that Linux will continue to face as it becomes more widely adopted. It's going to be impossible to keep the Open Source ideal of choice and expect wide spread adoption. Companies don't want to support multiple versions of Linux. Thus a single version is going to be what drives Linux in business. Then you have a single entity controlling Linux. So much for Open Source ideals.
Bruce writes:
It is possible for us to make our system entirely royalty-free for solution developers, both Free and proprietary. This dictates some software choices: GNOME and PostgreSQL rather than KDE and MySQL, simply because of the way those products license proprietary developers. This will support a large ecosystem of both Free and proprietary solution developers by lowering the financial barriers to entry all the way to zero.
So, let me get this straight - he wants to discourage the use of GPL'd code in UserLinux in order to have businesses create proprietary applications that can not in turn be included into UserLinux because they will not be free?
Sounds like an interesting one-sided ecosystem.
If he took this commercial-friendly argument to its logical conclusion he would dump the GPL'd Linux from UserLinux in favour of BSD. But then it would not be much of a UserLinux, would it?
It's actually pretty simple. Both GNOME and KDE are quite good and equally comparable as far as features and usability. Sometimes one may be better in one area and worse in the other, but they pretty much stack up well against each other.
The difference is that KDE uses QT which is GPL and GNOME uses GTK which is LGPL. The LGPL is more friendly towards proprietary software which is something that the target audience of UserLinux(corporations) will want.
So UserLinix has chosen GNOME.
It's not the desktop at issue, it's the library licensing.
According to the article he mentions that UserLinux is intended to be based upon Debian. The reason why is extremely important to understand:
We are looking at what is best described as an evolutionary process of development. This follows a more organic than Project Management path.
In the beginning there was Minix and it was expensive and not free but it worked well enough. Following this was the development of a free replacement called Linux.
Some time after that came Applixware, an Office Products Suite. It was expensive but it worked. Following this was StarOffice and now OpenOffice.
Given these two, we have evolved the software industry to such a point that there is now a very adequate if not excellent free software which can provide us with:
- A base Operating System: Linux
- A very suitable browser: Mozilla
- A very suitable Office environment: OpenOffice
But before each of these could exist, there was a non-free proprietary variant. Not always the case: Xfree, Postgresql, vi, emacs, and so on. But they do exist.The point that is so important here to understand and except is that Open Source, Free, non-Proprietary software is getting really good all the time.
Distributions themselves are following the same path. SuSE and RedHat cost money, but Debian and it's variants are getting better and gaining a larger percentage of users who consider these to be "good enough" to use every day.
In order to effectively provide a "good enough" solution to the Businesses, Open Source communities have to provide all of their free software as easily as possible. But it is extremely important to make it possible for someone to develop a proprietary software solution to fill in the niches that Debian is missing today so that Free Software, as a whole, can move into an ever increasing circle of "good enough" for users.
If there are any barriers of any kind to that entrance it will hurt the overall effectiveness of this process. Any questions or concerns, current or future, about the licensing of software development under Qt, MySQL or anything else, will only make it less attractive to a developer to invest in making a product for UnitedLinux only to have it completely fucked up by a bunch of whining lawyers.
Personally, I'm rather surprised that he didn't select GNUstep as the desktop of choice. Long term, it might be the best of the three options mentioned.
The GNOME libs are LGPL.
You do not have to distribue source that links against unmodified LGPL libs.
Funny that the KDE developers' argument boils down to: "We have these proposed applications, most of them aren't finished yet, or haven't even been started, but they're going to be really great and integrate well with an enterprise desktop, so you should choose KDE and ditch Gnome."
Thing is, Gnome has the applications NOW, already integrated and complying to a well tested Human Interface Guide.
Further more, nobody ever said UserLinux wouldn't include KDE apps. There is no reason their "killer apps", should they ever reach a usable state, couldn't be included. The decision is to go with Gnome as the default desktop, and these KDE developers have shown no reasons why this isn't the best choice. There is no need to include both desktops, as a user can only be running one at a time anyway.
Finally, if you don't like the decision, don't use the distribution! There are plenty of other distributions out there, at least two of which still use KDE as the default desktop (Mandrake and Suse). Funny that you don't see Gnome developers demanding that these distros switch to Gnome.
Let the whining and flaming commence!
All that we see or seem is but a dream within a dream.
he must be laughing his ass off over this stupid flame war.
His arguments are well thought out, and I must admit that the lisensing issue had bitten me at least once with respect to Qt. I also realize what this will cost me personally to retool to Gnome, but in the end will likely be worth it. I would have made the same choice a couple of years ago if I had known that Gnome was not also based on Qt (I had already tooled up with KDE by the time).
Oh well... time to learn yet another GUI API...
This entire concept of forcing one or the other will be the kiss of death for the project. In this case the end user needs to be given the choice..
While I'm all for not giving end users too many choices to confuse matters, the 2 main desktop camps are way too rabid about choosing THEIR desktop over the other. This will just degenerate into a holy war and get nowhere.
That said, I vote for KDE, since it's much more professional, consistent and mature. Both from a user viewpoint ( the GUI ) and a programmer's view point ( QT/KDE libs )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
"Perfectly reasonable as a project decision, even if I personally disagree with the choice it led to."
In terms of the greater question of choice in Linux, it's not a big deal, since we're free to choose another distro. I use Mandrake. I run windowmaker as my graphical environment, but if I want to fire up konqueror, it's no problem, likewise Gnome stuff, even though for the actual graphical environment, I don't use either.
However, as a "project decision" it's a poor one, since it will make for a poorer distribution than Mandrake. Precisely because users have choice, you want to create a distribution that is a good choice.
UserLinux is targeted at the enterprise community. It probably (and hopefuly) be used by non-geeky types who simply use what is installed on their computers. You can see KDE go the same way as netscape if UserLinux ever becomes popular.
.and frankly I just don't see that happening.
I don't buy that argument for a minute for the simple reason that KDE exists and is quite popular now w/o a UserLinux distro in existance. It's not the same kind of situation as netscape and IE were in which was a unified platform that had only one distribution. For a situation like the one you describe to occure it requires that UserLinux essentialy not only take the corprate world by a storm but also all the other distros too..
As someone who have read almost all the mails in the list so far, I think the decision to go with GNOME was taken in a BAD way atleast. First there was a lot of discussion about the technical merits of these 2 and later it was decided to go with GNOME based almost solely on "proprietory friendly" license of GTK. If that was the only criteria for selecting the softwares, then what is the purpose of discussion? its easy to compile a list softwares with the above license. Also, as far as I understand(someone correct me if I am wrong in this please) QT has been adopted by the ISVs far more than the GTK. It boasts of a customer base including IBM, Adobe , Samsung and many many other high profile companies. So if all these companies have found the technical mertis of QT(better documented APIs, more powerfull, architectural superiority etc.) more than the "proprietory unfriendly"[sic] nature of the license, then why the same logic does not apply to Userlinux? . The same goes with Epiphany also. It seems to be (not finalized though) decided that Epiphany would be the default browser. There was a lot of discussions about browser choice also. Mostly it was agreed that Mozilla firebird was the best choice . But then at the end Epiphany was chosen(?) based solely on the "better GNOME integration".Again why there needs to be a lot of discussion about the technical merits if at the end some criteria like "proprietory friendly" nature of the license and "Gnome integration" are going to be the sole criteria. Is these 2 factors so important to give such a huge weightage over technical merits and everything else ? After carefully reading all the mails also, I have not found a good answer for these concerns. Perhaps I am missing something. But anyway I wish all the best for Bruce and his effort.
http://www.nasirudheen.blogspot/
Companies don't want to support multiple versions of Linux. Thus a single version is going to be what drives Linux in business.
There will be at least RHEL, SUSE, and now UL.
So much for Open Source ideals.
I don't see any conflict with OSS ideals. You are not forced to use UL, it's all Open Source, you can install whatever you want, you can install UL apps on other Linux platforms, etc.
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
Choice is good mostly because it promotes competition. As a user in a business environment, choice isn't good because you want to unify the experience. So your systems admin should be choosing for you.
But outside that environment you need choices so that you can be gauranteed of getting the best quality.
It's like, why do we need any other car company except for Ford? Well, because if no other car company came into existance we'd probably still be driving around in model T's. Instead we have many car companies each of which is trying to get us to use their product. They do that by being "newer and better" than the other guy.
Competition drives innovation.
get working on building the KDE add-on.
I'm pretty much a gnome-only fellow; gnome 2.4 on this gentoo box and dropline gnome on my slackware laptop. That said, I still need qt and the kde-libs. I rarely use them (well, I really only use them for lyx and k3b as there isn't anything like k3b for gtk) but I still need them.
Stop arguing some stupid holy war (I like gnome and I'm not moving and I have friends that swear by KDE and aren't moving). If United isn't going to take KDE, someone needs to build a dropline-ese KDE that will bold right on.
I don't mean to stalk you in this story!
You can see KDE go the same way as netscape if UserLinux ever becomes popular.
KDE made a choice when it based itself on Qt. Times change and KDE's problems have changed - KDE is a good Free Software* desktop environment. But because Qt is GPL'd, it presents a barrier to proprietary development that is against the goals of UserLinux.
If being the default desktop of UserLinux is so important to KDE, why don't they re-implement their desktop ontop of an LGLP'd toolkit?
If it's not so important that they are willing to do that, then people should stop being upset. In the choice of a default there will be a winner and one or more losers. XFCE lost here too, but they're not whining. Only one desktop can be the default!
As for the Netscape comparison, I think there were other factors which led to Netscape's demise, like a bloated product (Communicator). Look how people prefer Firebird over Mozilla. There's still time for IE to be ousted - all the time in the world, from now to the end of time.
* Or is it? Look at what TrollTech say here - TT don't want you using Free Qt on inhouse projects, but the GPL says you can. This makes me distrust TrollTech.
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
First of all this is old news, there is no continuing debate. This is old stuff.
Second of all, the Qt license discussion is completely moot. Have you even read the proposal?
Third of all, Bruce Peren's project is vapourware unlike the KDE project which is already progressing. Just look at the latest KDE-CVS-Digest and you see already Kapture and KDebConf coming out of this.
(Please browse at -1 to read this comment.)
Well then, lets put it on the table. This project is not by or for the community. Yet it depends on the contributions of a huge number of developers.
When, oh when will people realize that the future of Linux and Open Source is dependent on corporate adoption? Bruce says it himself - widespread corporate adoption is necessary to combat the sw patent and other (idiotic) legal threats.
If the corps are not with us, they will be on the other side and we will lose.
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
First of all this is old news, there is no continuing debate. This is old stuff.
Second of all, the Qt license discussion is completely moot. Have you even read the proposal? KDE is integrating GTK+ to allow LGPL development.
Third of all, Bruce Peren's project is vapourware unlike the KDE/Debian project which is well under way independent of UserLinux. Just look at the latest KDE-CVS-Digest and you see already Kapture and KDebConf coming out of this.
(Please browse at -1 to read this comment.)
>> Gnome is the better "supported" option because it doesn't require royalties for closed source development.
Then why is that we see a hell lot of QT based proprietory applications and very very less of those GTK based applications ? companies like Boeing, Daimler Chrysler, Disney, Fujitsu, General Electric, Hitachi, Honda, HP, IBM, Intel etc. have developed QT based applications. Why not many GTK based applications ?
I can understand the business decision to go with one DE over the others... this makes good sense. What I *don't* understand is why Perens refuses to include the KDE libs by default. Including the libs and a few choice applications to fill the gaps where kde apps outperform what gnome offers (k3b and others) would do a lot for improving the total package of UserLinux and keep some of the critics at bay.
If I can put on my tinfoil hat for a second here, the best reason I can think of for not including the KDE libs is to stir up the traditional KDE/GNOME debate and get more coverage on slashdot and other sites. Trolling for media coverage, it's the wave of the future!
501 Not Implemented
This is a better link to the GNU perspective on the matter.
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
RTFA? Its about the licensing options of the underlying toolkits, not technical superiority.
I am not denying Qt licensing issues. They are real. And since KDE is based on Qt, it goes against them.
The point I wanted to make was why the KDE team was so concerned about not being included in UserLinux. If Userlinux is ever to become as popular as they hope it would (and it does not include KDE), it would be a big loss for KDE.
Don't Panic
Lord, this arcane bickering seems pointless. From my reading Perens' goal is to develop a distro that "just works" for the average corporate user.
I just wrapped up my semi-annual "download a linux distro and see if the damned thing will work" exercise, and once again I'm falling back on Win2K, which does everthing that I need, and does it with a minimum of BS.
Over the last few years I've tried RedHat, Mandrake, and a half dozen other distros, on both bare machines and dual boot systems. In every case I hit the wall when trying to implement some simple or essential feature. Every time I found myself led into that arcane and recursive hell known as man pages and how-tos. (and mailing lists, and discussion groups and...)
I'm good with hardware, and can make Windows do anything I need. I have managed to troubleshoot some exceedingly obscure problems in the past. Still, once again I've abandoned Linux because I can't afford to invest weeks of obscure research just to do day to day work.
I really want to be rid of Microsoft products. I find them more irritating than useful, and surely don't like MS' business practices.
I love OpenOffice and have pretty much abandoned MS Office. I like Mozilla, and use a wide variety of freeware and open source products.
I would in a minute abandon MS Windows if it were practical, but to do that I need a distro that will do what Windows does:
Find and configure all my hardware, set up internet access and networking to allow all of the computers on our system to share files, and easily allow others to use the printers attached to my PC, easily set up my two video cards and monitors, set up to sync my PalmPilot.
And have decent looking fonts.
So far every distro I have tried has blown at least two of these basic goals and has offered no easy way to achieve them.
Again, I cannot afford to spend days or weeks tracking down the obscure solution to make something like HotSync work.
It does not matter to me whether this happens with GNOME or KDE. If I can boot from CD and have all of these things come up working, I'll buy it.
If including only GNOME allows Perens' the time to make a truly reliable installer, then I'm for it.
Three Squirrels
...companies like Boeing, Daimler Chrysler, Disney, Fujitsu, General Electric, Hitachi, Honda, HP, IBM, Intel etc. have developed QT based applications. Why not many GTK based applications ?
That's fine, but that's their choice; they can still do that under a Gnome-default UserLinux. But do you think it would be right for UserLinux to encourage a TrollTech "tax" by choosing KDE? I don't.
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
You are speaking out of your fucking fat ass again...
Lots of claims, no proofs...
Quite; note that the specific reason Gnome chose LGPL for it's libraries was to encourage popularity!
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
Strawman. The point from the pro-KDE proponents was that it's better for Userlinux to at least also include the KDE libraries and QT. Then the market can decide.
Userlinux is free to choose whatever they want into their distro, it's just that they should not pretend to (strive to) be _the_ Free linux enterprise distribution.
If you develop commercial software, the SDK licensing fee means practically nothing. If you don't think your commercial app will bring in much more than the cost of SDK licensing, well, don't get into the business.
In general, the only trouble with licensing fees is if they are run-time royalties.
UserLinux doesn't even *exist* yet. That's a far cry from having a monopolist's power to "persuade" 90plus percent of the market to switch over to using Internet Destroyer instead of Netscape more or less overnight (as they upgrade from windose95 to 98 or 2000).
There are no grounds to make an MS - UserLinux comparison. In fact it's ludicrous.
Johnny Quest has two Daddies.
It's funny that one would exclude the top C++ GUI toolkit for commercial development for the purpose of making the distribution friendly for commercial development.
Bruce says he wants to provide as default enterprise class support for one (1) desktop environment.
In his words: Because these service providers are basing their business upon a commodity product, there are already economic limits upon how profitable they can be. The difference between one and two GUIs may spell profitability or bankruptcy for some of our service providers. In a similar vein, internal support and engineering staff at businesses that employ UserLinux would like to have only one GUI SDK to develop for and maintain.
He also says that anyone is free to install Qt/KDE and the vendors are free to sell support for it if they so choose.
Now, I don't see how he can do fairer than this without compromising the stated aims of the project.
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
Where is the GNOME proposal? Where are the people doing the GNOME work? Nowhere. KDE/Debian is already doing great on its own.
(Please browse at -1 to read this comment.)
I agree.
His rationale is that he is focusing the business community on one standard set of solutions (chosen by King Perens himself.) He is saying that if that standard common environment exists, businesses will be quicker to jump on the bandwagon and move over to Linux.
I personally think that businesses value the choice to determine their own set of tools.
Perens may be right that it is easier to maintain the one standard solution, but in this case, losing KDE is just losing too much. COmpanies may like standards, choosing from 20 solutions would not make sense.
Perhaps I am missing something.
Yes - you are missing the difference between a library and an application.
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
> Yes - you are missing the difference between a library and an application.
I know the difference between the library and application. But would you care to explain how does it affects my points or arguments ?
I know the difference between the library and application. But would you care to explain how does it affects my points or arguments ?
My point was that license is hugely important for something that the user might link to while w/ application it doesn't matter as long as it's "free enough".
As far as your other points go, look and feel are a "technical argument" in an end-user application like a browser.
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
GNOME and KDE are too far gone into bloatland.
Before it even gets out of the gate, it's becoming apparent that nobody is going to be using it.
"Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
--Tom Schulman
> default girly pastel-colored look
You mean like the snazzy 80s pink and blue pastel in Sun's CDE desktop?
But I agree with your point. When the "Plastic" theme came out for KDE, all the fanboyz were drooling despite the fact that it had obvious visual issues and looked like a very cheap combination of Win98 and OS X. "Plastic" was pretty much the right word for it - it was a walmart-quality imitation of something else.
And then they went ahead and made it the standard theme. Pretty sad when the masses of 20-year-olds that masturbate to anime can overrule GOOD TASTE. It's like thinking a girl is cute because she loaded up on makeup.
And your point is?
Come on, drop the rhetoric, you got my point.
Using C for a base library has a number of nice side effects, like: 1. Not needing a C++ compiler
Who cares? gcc is here, and it has good C++ support now.
The rest of the stuff I mostly agree with. However, the Python bindings for Qt are generated from C++ code by Swig, so that they get the OO feel automatically. Seems like a good thing for me.
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
One argument that I keep hearing from the KDE/Qt camp is `If you are going to make commercial applications, you can afford to pay the price of a license'. There is even a study that shows that for a team of 10 developers at 75,000/USD year for two years, the price of Qt is peanuts compared to the total investment.
The flaw I see with this analysis is that it is not in par with the rest of Linux. You do not see sysadmins paying for Apache, Perl, MySQL, Postgress, Python, Slashcode, PostNuke/PhpNuke or any content management system, and I am sure anyone running a porn site, or using Linux in an eneterprise settings is probably mkaing more than the 75,000 per developer listed above.
Bruce's position is consistent with the fact that there are no strings attached, no special royalties, no special treatment of users: everything is free, and you can build entirely fre e systems with no strings attached with GNOME as the platform.
Also, 2,600 dollars per license might not be much in Britain or the US, but it is sure a hell of a lot of money for a startup anywhere else where Linux is being deployed: Malaysia, China, India, Brazil, Peru, Colombia, Chile, Argentina.
Hey, 2,600 dollars will get you a Windows Server edition, Visual Studio and quite a few extra goodies from MSDN, am just not sure that telling commercial developers to ponny up more than they have to for MSDN is a winning position here to promote Linux over Windows on the desktop.
Hey on Microsoft you can even get the Platform SDK and the Microsoft.NET development tools for free and use SharpDevelop instead, and that my friend is a lot cheaper than Qt is.
What does that mean? Is he going to spin a small Italian car around and see what it points to? I've never heard the term "by fiat".
BTW I guess since he lost his job at HP, he's had to clean himself up a bit. I guess he gave up on the Dr. Who lookalike style.
This argument is rediculous. It's Bruce's project, his time, his effort, his blood sweat and tears to put the project together. If you don't like his decision, don't work on the project and don't use the software. If the project fails because he made a bad decision, then he has noone to blame but himself. Additionally, this decision hasn't prevented UserLinux users from using KDE. They can still install it from the Debian packages.
Why doesn't KDE start a similar project that only uses QT based software? The two distros can compete head to head. Then we'll see what the business community wants. Nobody bitches and moans that Klaus Knopper only supports KDE on the Knoppix CD. The guys from Gnoppix went out and created their own Gnome based version.
The beauty of free software is that you have the freedom to do whatever you want with it. Bruce can do whatever he wants. KDE can do what it wants. You can use whatever product appeals to you. The downside to all this freedom is that it quickly becomes very difficult to provide any kind of decent technical support. It's no wonder that it is so hard to debug some users software. They could be using any number of kernels, with hundreds of possible patches, and hundreds of other kernel configuration options. And that's just in the kernel. Add to that the complexity of supporting numerous different desktop environments and you now find that it's nearly impossible to give and kind of decent support. That's why all of the major distro's are finally realizing that you have to have a reference platform to debug against. Otherwise, after spending 20 hours trying to figure out why some users ALSA sound won't work, you discover that they added some weird patch to their kernel that somehow breaks sound. This happens all the time. It's why projects like OpenBSD won't even try to give support if the user is using anything other than the stock kernel.
But what's disgusting about this argument is that KDE developers and users feel entitled to have KDE included in UserLinux. They don't care about the fact that someone else is going to have to do the work to support it. All those persons whining about this decision ought to put up or shut up. Start your own QT focused project. Or even better, if you're such fair and upstanding people, start your own project that includes both Gnome and KDE. Then you can reap what you sow.
>> My point was that license is hugely important for something that the user might link to while w/ application it doesn't matter as long as it's "free enough".
Let me clarify this point again. The argument that "proprietory-friendly" license alone will attract ISVs is a myth. If that was the case, then GTK should have attracted a lot of ISVs and QT would not have. But what we see at present is GTK has failed in this aspect and QT has indeed attracted a lot of ISVs. So what is important is not just license but other things like technical superiority and better documentation and support. Atleast in this case( GTK vs QT) these factors have beaten license issue. Also when I say "technical merits", I dont mean "look and feel". What I mean is better architecture, APIs , documentation and support.
http://www.nasirudheen.blogspot/
Haha, Linux desktop means KDE. Nobody cares about II companys as they are all nuts. QT was not GPL? Well, freeQT creates a true incentive to license your works as GPL while Gnome libs LGPL license tends to spread the license variety. Gecko? KDE wanted to integrate it but then KHTML was backed by Apple and turned out to be better and faster.
KDE developers never started Gnome bashing as Miguel and other did. It seems to me that this reflects the disadvantages of Gnome. the user does not want Gnome for the desktop. Despite RedHat no mayor distribution used Gnome as default.
Gnome is the better "supported" option because it doesn't require royalties for closed source development.
I just think it's ironic that the people who want to collect royalties don't want to pay them.
If you haven't seen this before, then you haven't been watching the distributions. Lots of the smaller distributions have only shipped with their favored window manager. (Possibly because the guy that put them together couldn't be bothered with one he didn't use.)
UserLinux is making a bigger splash than most of these...but this doesn't really mean that it will go anywhere. Who's going to adopt it? Why?
Well, nobody who likes KDE will adopt it. Nobody who likes blackbox. Or TWM. Or...
So it will only be adopted by those individuals who already like Gnome. OK. What's the first step towards getting Linux into a corporation? Somebody puts it on his computer to check it out! So from the start they've limited their initial penetration. Now if they do a good enough job, this may get enough good PR that others will check it out. But if they don't like Gnome, they probably won't like this. So they'll go back to SuSE or Mandrake or Debian or...
Basically, then, this is intended to take customers from either MSWindows, or from a distribution that normally runs under Gnome. Like Red Hat.
I'll be surprised if this is a good enough distribution to succeed, but there's nothing wrong with him trying.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
The KDE/Debian effort is already going on and strong. UserLinux on the other hand is a vapourware project. KDE/Debian effort already has code in CVS and is nearing the release of a LiveCD.
(Please browse at -1 to read this comment.)
Yes, KDE has a lot of stuff that GNOME does not.
But KDE also has ONE ITEM that Bruce will not accept.
With Qt, you have to pay a one time fee to do commercial development.
GNOME does not have this restriction.
Bruce has stated his criteria often enough, but the KDE fans just won't listen to him.
Mod parent up. While it's obvious to everyone who has a penis bigger than 5" that Gnome is for fags and KDE is for real Linuxers, this is a pretty good point. Damn I hate that.
As we know, the issue is about licensing. Commercial (read: proprietary) software can be built with GTK without licensing fees. The same cannot be said of QT. Nevermind the hypocrisy of people who want to sell software not being willing to pay for it. The question I have is: why is Bruce Perens pushing for such an initiative? The 'open source' philosophy has always distinguished itself from the 'free software' philosophy by emphasizing pragmatism over ethics. But the preferred licensing was more or less the same. Whether for ethical or pragmatic reasons, both camps preferred licensing that made it possible to run, study, redistribute, and improve the source code.
The choice of Gnome over KDE represents a real change. The change is that Bruce is now making a choice about what software to use based on his commercial interests, rather than what software/license is 'better' in either a pragmatic or ethical sense. This choice is based on the degree to which it facilitates the production of proprietary software.
It's certainly his right to do so, and I'm not saying this perspective is any better or worse than any other philosophy. It's just noteworthy, is all.
UserLinux will be based on Debian.
"Why not let the decision-makers at that company make that decision? The company could choose just one UI, but they could choose between KDE and GNOME. Now, Bruce Perens makes that choice for them."
No. Bruce will be officially supporting GNOME. Bruce will be shipping GNOME.
But that does NOT mean that any company will be PREVENTED from installing UserLinux and then adding KDE or even adding KDE and removing GNOME.
apt-get install
Learn it.
Live it.
Love it.
"Tools to do just that already exist in KDE, but they are not available for GNOME. So KDE has a clear advantage there."
Fine, now just get Trolltech to remove the fee for commercial developement and I'm sure Bruce will re-evaluate his decision.
Oh, Trolltech won't do that? Well, that's too bad. I guess Bruce's decision to base it on GNOME was the correct decision then.
So, you think that choosing a LGPL (that allows the creation of non-free software for free) library over a GPL (that forces you to create free software) one is "not promoting non-free software"?
All libraries should be as QT, you want to use it to get rich and create non-free software? Then PAY for it. You want to create free software? Then get it free.
...once and for all, so that we needn't go through this darned discussion every second week!
The reason he is against KDE for this project is that QT requires a one time payment for commercial development.
Yes, as you've pointed out, lots of companies have paid that. So what?
Bruce is basing this distribution on his personal beliefs and agenda.
He believes that there is a lot of development that will be done in the future in countries that cannot easily afford the QT fee.
"What I don't understand is why dump the really good KDE for a not so good (IMHO) Gnome just because of toolkits."
Because of the licenses involved. Bruce made that very clear in his first paper on this. It is because of the licensing.
"My answer to the UserLinux proposal is: use KDE as desktop, support Gnome also and improve interoperability (freedesktop is already a common direction for that)."
Great. Then you can start your own distribution and I wish you well. Bruce has a different goal.
Most of the "why didn't he include KDE" comments I see lack the understanding of WHY he chose not to use KDE.
If it matters so much to the KDE people, then they can get Trolltech to change the licensing. And don't give me any of that crap about "you should pay if you make a profit". That's the reason Bruce chose GNOME instead of KDE so your argument is circular.
If the KDE people cannot get the license changed, then they are free to release their OWN distribution and make it even better than UserLinux.
But if you're not going to get the license changed AND you're not going to release your own version THEN STFU and stop trying to impose YOUR viewpoint on Bruce.
This is Bruce's time and effort and he is allowed to do whatever he wants with them. Whether it meets with YOUR approval or not.
"For my part, I think GNOME beats KDE by a long shot because it is based on C and not C++. The number of competetent C developers far outweighs the number of competent C++ developers."
So you immediately position the argument as what is best for programmers? Classic failure which is exactly why we need a USERLinux to begin with. While Gnome has wrestled with exposing widgets in so many APIs it is just a mess of tangled spaghetti, KDE from the beginning has started from the goal of making the end product seamless and intuitive for users, and chosing the single best way to do that instead of suffering death by a million cuts to whatever programming paradigms are required for whatever language has geek chic today.
The phrase "X beats Y because it is based on Z programming langauge" is a complete red herring when we are talking about end user experience.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Perhaps we're about to see a real "failure" of the open source community: the inability to make an API that properly abstracts the GUI, etc, so that it doesn't matter -what- DE you're using.
XFCE has just released version 4.0.2
Regards
Stephen
"My understanding of Bruce's goal is that UserLinux will be the one distribution that all comercial software and hardware makers will chose as a point of reference."
If hardware makers support it, then, because it is just re-packaged Debian, that support will be available for any Distribution out there.
If software makers support it, then, because it is just re-packaged Debian, the KDE people can add it to KDE.
"I fear a future in which all comercial developers will only support UserLinux."
Why? It's just re-packaged Debian. What are you afraid of?
"I believe this is what the KDE developers fear also."
Afraid of what, SPECIFICALLY?
I think he meant because of speed and lack of bloat. Let's get real, KDE is a pig. Gnome is much thinner to run. Just my personal experience, but I'd much rather use a desktop programmed in C++ than Java or Python, just like I'd rather use a desktop programmed in C than C++.
> The first thing UserLinux needs to fix is its own name.
I agree. The name is misleading.
It should learn from other distributions. For instance, RedHat Linux is targetted to people with red hats. SuSE is targetted to girls named SuSiE. Gentoo is targetted to penguins. Mandrake is targetted to people who like May apples. Libranet is targetted to people who are born under the Zodiac Libra sign and want to do networking. Lycoris is targetted to people who enjoy the licorice root.
UserLinux seems to imply that it actually wants someone to use the Linux distribution. Since according to GNU no-one uses Linux (they use GNU/Linux), this name is clearly misleading. (*tongue placed firmly in check*)
> many people find it hard to take seriously a desktop environment with a default girly pastel-colored look
And I have thought with an one million dollar budget there would be some dollars included to switch the widget style.
I just think its ironic that people who want to make money don't want to give it away.
... have this restriction.
Only QT has it. It is perfectly legal and accepted in the KDE community to produce KDE applications with the GTK+ toolkit.
Sodipodi already does this, and there is a ongoing project to make it negligable work to write full GTK+ applications that link to KDE libs for DCOP communication, print and file dialogues, KIO Slaves, drag-n-drop, etc..
This is how they are getting OOo and mozilla looking like KDE, using the same techniques.
(note: this is not currently possible for GNOME+Qt development)
In other words, KDE already has compatibility and choice for your toolkit of choice, and it is improving every day. GNOME doesn't.
Two infinite things: your stupidity and mine. But I'm not sure about the latter. If my sig offends you, I'm sorry.
The GPL is incompatible with several open source licenses including Apache, Helix, and Eclipse. By relying on GPLed *libraries*, you're saying that the only open source worth writing is GPL-compatible open source.
BTW, at least half the companies you mention also produce products based on Gtk+ (WebSphere from IBM and Realplayer are probably the most prominent of the list). Every company I've been to produces lists like these. If one person in a company buys your product, you can automatically say "This company uses our product". They may just be buying it to test it or they may discover that it doesn't suit their needs. It doesn't matter, as long as they bought it, marketing can get away with saying that they are a customer.
And let's not forget the small company. Thousands of dollars is *a lot* of money. Money is tight, and I don't see anything particularly amazing in Qt that would cause it to pay for itself. Small companies don't often care about portability (so they stick with one platform), but even when they do, Qt isn't the best choice. WxWindows or Swing or SWT or pyGtk+ or PhpGtk+ are far cheaper than commercial Qt (their free) and they're at least as easy to use.
How many times does this need to be pointed out? QT/KDE does NOT require the purchase of a licence to be used in developing commercial products!!
Read the QT FAQ. You can freely (free as in speech and as in beer) develop software for whatever purpose you desire using QT, including commercial purposes. Millions of people use software developed with free QT for commercial purposes every day.
To make this even more clear: QT is released under the GPL. The GPL forbids anyone from restricting the use of QT or products derived from QT under that licence. In other words, you CANNOT develop a product derived from GPL'd code and say "you can only use this for non-commecial purposes."
The GPL is an excellent licence for commercial software for reasons to numerous to mention, vastly superior to, say, a typical Microsoft licence.
Lets say a business has to choose between two software products with equal capability but different licences. The first product is free to use, can be used on many machines, comes with its source code, and can be modified and redistributed. The second product needs to be licenced seperately for each machine it runs on, cannot be copied internal let alone redistributed externaly, and does not even reveal its source let alone allow for it to be modified. Which is product is superior for commercial purposes?
I think this confusion about licencing arises because far too many people confuse COMMERCIAL software development with CLOSED SOURCE software development. COMMERCIAL does not equal CLOSED SOURCE!!! I use Free (open source) Software every day for commercial purposes. Millions of people do.
Now, for those people who want to write a closed source software product, they can also use QT for this purpose... however in that case they must purchase a commercial licence from TrollTech, instead of licencing it under the GPL. This is only logical... if you want to sell a software product under a closed source, proprietary licence, and not allow your customers to get the source or have the right to freely use it, why the hell should Trolltech (and other developers of Free software) have to give you THEIR source for free?
This is why I think that QT/KDE has a SUPERIOR licencing scheme to that of GTK/Gnome... QT/KDE allows for closed source development but ENCOURAGES open source.
I have great respect for Bruce Perens, but he is way off base on this. If there must be only one desktop environment in UserLinux it should be KDE. It is very disapointing to see him get behind the platform that is LESS beneficial to free software.
No they can't. Because UserLinux doesn't include Qt or KDE by default! That's the whole issue here. Its not just that they pick GNOME as the default, but that they don't include Qt or KDE at all. You can say "apt-get kde" but in a business environment, that could be a problem.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
GNOME made Trolltech release the QT under the best of all free software licences: the Great Public Licence (GPL).
GNOME provides a lower initial cost, lower quality alternative to companies
- not wanting to code their GUI apps as open source
- not being profitable enough to afford an initial investment in better tools.
This keeps the costs of Qt for commercial closed source companies reasonable.GNOME provides a way to code GUI applications in the older C language for developers unwilling to adapt newer languages. Did I forget something? Anyways, good that it exists, but KDE/Qt is a lot better. Thanks for chasing KDE to perfection and providing a backup in case KDE moves in the wrong direction.
Moritz
Either Qt is GPL or it isn't. If it is, then companies are free to make proprietary in-house modifications and not release them to anyone, as the GPL faq points out. TrollTrech states that "it's our policy that..." or "We do not intend that...", but if Qt is really GPL then that can really be nothing more than an emphatic plea, not a legal proclamation.
Performance is fast becoming an obsolete excuse. Most desktop machines are "fast enough". What is more important is usability. Furthermore, if the target is the enterprise, the marginal cost of buying a faster machine is FAR outweighed by productivity gains. That is even if you subscribe to the notion that there are meaningful and non-mitigatable performance differences between programming languages/styles.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
it requires a single, cheap developer license. It's like $100 or something. And you can still develop in house aps for it, or use GTK with KDE.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
If this means that all UserLinux-specific scripts ini the distribution will be written in Python, that's fine. If it means that Perl won't even be in the distribution, he's nuts.
There are certain things that pretty much everyone assumes are available on Linux systems, and Perl is one of them.
The business world already was offered Unix systems with one choice for everything (that's how most commercial Unix systems worked), and Linux is kicking their asses, and one of the reasons is that Linux includes all these alternatives.
Picking one GUI for users is one thing, but for things that are used by programs rather than directly by users, a good Linux-for-business distribution should have them all.
Business don't give a fuck about needing to buy a $100 developer license to release closed code. Most of them aren't going to release closed source apps, and the GPL allows them to write internal applications and keep them secret.
and in any event, GTK is still an option for development on KDE based machines!
What business wants is a nice, consistent GUI, they don't care about GPL vs. LGPL vs. Closed source even. (Lots of them run windows). KDE is a smoother GUI, and better integrated. I honestly don't believe UserLinux will get that much traction if they stick with Gnome over KDE. KDE is much more 'professional' in terms of smoothness, etc. and that's what business care about.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
I think the following should be considered:
(from http://www.mozilla.org/products/firebird)
Mozilla Firebird is a Technology Preview.
While this software may work well enough to be relied upon as your primary browser, we make no guarantees of its performance or stability in its pre-1.0 state and it should not be relied upon for mission- critical tasks
Seems like a pretty good disincentive for basing your platform on it.
-Mark
If you can, there's something wrong. You can't kill a free software project like that. It only dies if it no longer serves the developers goals.
Personally, I'd rather see them adopt GNUStep than either one - and if enough folk agree with me we might see another project taking that route. I'm sure there will continue to be other distros that choose to support KDE. It's not the end of the world, because free software is not the same world as the one where your expectations were formed.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
i agree, loosing kde is too much.
if there were 12 majour desktops of equal meter, sure, pick 1 or 2.
with two majour really well engineerd desktops there is no confusion. loosing kde is too much.
our business will be running kde as we move on to a switch to debian destkops, sans UserLinux.
And KDE is more usable than Gnome? I would debate this. KDE has more options. It's questionable whether that makes it more usable. I'd say in some ways it makes it more complicated thus less usable.
UserLinux is targeted at the enterprise community. It probably (and hopefuly) be used by non-geeky types who simply use what is installed on their computers. You can see KDE go the same way as netscape if UserLinux ever becomes popular.
The reason that NS4.x died was because it sucked, plain and simple. Windows came with IE1, 2 and 3 and no one ever used them because they didn't have the features that netscape did. When IE4 came out, it was just better then netscape. The fact that it was installed helped, but NS was based on a bloated, shitty codebase that had been cramed with features without good engenering, and couldn't be fixed (mozilla, for example, is a totaly new codebase).
Netscape sowed the seeds of their own destruction.
Right now KDE is better. And it dosn't have the problems netscape did. In all honestly, I don't think userlinux will catch on untill Gnome is as good or better the KDE, or unless they use KDE.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
"MCSEs may be cheaper, but it takes 10 of them to do the same job as one Unix server admin" -- slashdot
They that quote Benjamin Franklin on liberty and safety deserve neither.
Why? YOu can always use a commercial qt license and release your code under any license you wish. It's your code after all. You can even modify the commercial qt and ship the modfified qt with your closed source product. Also you can use GPL code on MacOSX, EMbedded, all Unix/Linux and Windows using X+Cygwin. Which is pretty much 100 % of all relevant OS.
The KDE camp still refuse to admit they made an unholy alliance with the devil and will forever be damned for it. The GNOME camp saved the Free Software world by realizing the danger and running balls to the wall to quickly organize themselves and catch up close enough to KDE/Qt to prevent it from ever becoming a defacto standard.
The Gnome camp should be thanked for making TrollTech give us qt under the linux license GPL. Mission accomplished, I'd say. Of course, if Miguel de Icaza had worked on Harmony, the free qt replacement instead of using the gimp motif ripoff toolkit in C with OO latched on top to code a crappy second Desktop environment, we would also have just KDE today, using Qt under GPL as well.
GNOME has produced some nice software, but without dotcom money, it probably won't be able to keep up with the technically superior QT/KDE system. Basing the so-called "user"-linux on Redhat's and Ximian's GNOME and excluding Qt/KDE is a waste of everyone's time.
Moritz
The license issue is not an issue for any business. I mean come on. We are talking about people who use windows for most of their work. Sure, in theory you can develop on windows without Visual Studio, but how many enterprises actually do? The Qt closed-source license fee is less then the cost of VS.net, and hell It's only about half a days worth of Programmer salary anyway. If you can afford to pay programmers, you can easily afford to buy Qt licenses. Or, you can run GTK apps in KDE. It's not like its difficult.
the cost of Qt is a complete non-issue for enterprise software.
Finally, if you are actually developing your own software, for release you're probably not going to need the same kind of 'hand holding' support packages from these companies.
You really think someone running windows isn't going to avoid KDE because the GPL isn't "free" enough for them, that they need LGPL?
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
If I wanted to legally make commercial linux software, why should I go with the toolset that was created because the other was not polically correct and offers less flexible licencing options?
The only problem left is that qt is not always kde-aware enough, but that is a small problem.
Using Gnome is the big problem...
But who'd want a desktop whose logo is a smelly foot?
If this is what take to get one /.er to shower... it's all worthy.
I just want to see UL succeed, and Gtk way is easier to sell to commercial companies. Many companies would cringe if they were told that developing for Linux is more expensive than developing for Windows.
Dude, developing in house apps will still be free via the GPL. Not many companes actualy sell software, and those that do can either buy the license or use GTK.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
If he decided to use Gnome - its ok, because its his personal project. And Gnome is not so bad afterall. So where is the problem ? Why to discuss it so much and even flame each other :)
Go look at the GNU Win CD or The Open CD and count the Qt/KDE apps. Or let me save you the time and do it for you. Zero.
That's because QT/KDE hasn't been ported to Windows yet. There's nothing stopping someone from taking the Free GPL'ed QT (and KDE) and porting it to Windows. It just hasn't been done yet.
The pisser with the Qt license is that a project must decide before writing the first line of code which license they plan to release under and you can't change your mind later.
Are you insane? The copyright holder on a piece of code can decide at any time what license he wishes to use in his code. If he develops against the Free QT, he has to release his source code under a GPL-compatible license. If he later decides to go commercial, then he can relicense all later code (the code he originally released under the GPL will remain GPL for all time) and write against the Professional/Enterprise QT and release it under whatever license he wants.
You can't dual license either.
You can do whatever you want as long as it's GPL-compatible.
And if you opt for free you can never port to an unfree system.
You can't take your code that you released under the GPL back, no. But that's the case with any code you release under the GPL. You can later choose to go proprietary and close your source, though. All you have to do is purchase a Professional/Enterprise QT license.
The KDE camp still refuse to admit they made an unholy alliance with the devil and will forever be damned for it.
If by "forever be damned for it" you mean "must link with GPLed software," then sure, you're right. Although I wouldn't exactly call that an "unholy alliance with the Devil."
Repeat after me: Free QT is the GPL. There are no further restrictions on your code and there can be no further restrictions on your code. All the same restrictions that normally apply to linking against GPLed code apply here.
Jeremy
Looking for a Python IRC bot?
A standard... that doesn't necessarily explain why Windows apps look about three different ways: .NET look and feel is in Office, Visual Studio, etc.
Windows 95 look and feel still exists on some apps;
Windows XP look and feel is currently predominant;
Windows
Clearly there are at least three different toolkits lurking about for Windows or everything would look exactly the same, right?
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
You know what would be awesome:
An implementation of Gtk+ in Qt, and an implementation of Qt in Gtk+.
Then you could claim that it doesn't matter which one you use, it will integrate 'well enough' with whatever desktop it's running on.
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
So what is wrong with a gpled qt used for the KDe librarys? what could happen?
Let's pick a name and stick to the premise.. KDE for "USER"Linux, Gnome for "HACKER"Linux. HackerLinux is done btw, pick any distro in existance.
And meanhwile, distros like Knoppix and Lindows do not include the Gnome libraries. I don't hear you complain about that...
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
What is becoming apparent is that a smallish, vocal fanboy group is prepared to tear any project apart if they do not include their favorite project. The people surrounding the KDE project is actually the largest reason I have never considered using it "for real".
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
It comes configured the way most would need...uses kde and is debian -- how much better can you get?
www.mepis.org
Knoppix and Lindows do not claim to be enterprise OSs. Knoppix is a LiveCD for god's sake! UserLinux, at least according to the stuff Perens said when announcing it, is supposed to be the banner under which Open Source will fight for the Enterprise market. And KDE is being left out of that fight.
If the GNOME libraries were being left out of such an important project, you can bet the GNOME folks would be up in arms, as they should be, because that would be a stupid thing for the UserLinux developers to do.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
ISVs! UserLinux make the base distro, ISVs can add to it if desired. They can do the apt-get install, and pass that on to their customers.
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
Although Qt is an excellent toolkit in many aspects, it is not a C++ toolkit.
Qt sources have to be preprocessed before they can be passed through a standard C++ compiler, and the preprocessor has many limitations.
However, it can't really serve as an argument in the GNOME vs KDE debate.
Compared to the annual salaries of programmers(i.e. 50K+)
The figure you quote is accurate only for the United States and possibly Canada and Western Europe. Mr. Perens wants UserLinux to become popular in places such as Vietnam and India where programming labor is cheaper than in the States, and a Qt license for each programmer working on in-house apps represents a much bigger chunk of the bottom line.
If you can't afford Qt, then you probably can't afford to pay programmers
Labor doesn't cost the same in all countries.
The vast majority of bussness do their coding in house and don't release it. They can still do this with the GPL'd QT
Not if a program contains trade secrets. Once an in-house app is GPL'd, every employee has the right to leak it.
In my opinion, GTK/GNOME is _less_ free because of the LGPL. The GPL was created so that the freedom goes where the software does, and it's not true with the LGPL.
It seems that the Qt/KDE effort cannot win! First they got the rasberry because Qt wasn't licenced under a free licence, now that it is everyone complains when there is a penalty for developing closed source applications!
answered here
Like, isn't KDE better in many respects? Most. Wait. Gnome sucks. Hey, I've got a great idea, why not make as many desktops as available as possible, and just select one default installed desktop.
SCO's bosses at Canopy controls Trolltech
Not according to Trolltech's investor list, which claims that the employees own nearly two-thirds of the stock. Even Borland owns more than Canopy and SCO, which put together control less than 6 percent of Trolltech.
it's a showstopper when joe user wants to install software
Tough cookies. The IT department would rather not let employees install any unauthorized program at all. The administrator has disabled execution of binaries in /home/ except for users in the devel group. If an employee wants a Qt app, the usual channels for a New Program Installation proposal to the IT department remain open.
controversy for the sake of controversy.
there will be gnome on userlinux, if ever
there is a userlinux, and there will also
be kde on userlinux, likewise. i'd like to
see mr perens try to prevent a fork of a
distro that intentionally excluded half of
the highest productivity end=user programs
available for the platform. heh.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
Of greater moment is the choice of database library. PostgreSQL is enormously more complete and standard-compliant than MySQL, and (for years, now) faster, and is committed to the more liberal license that Bruce has demanded. MySQL (like KDE) is straight GPL in release 4.x, and lacks many important enterprise features.
Odd, isn't it, that we don't see flame wars over the database? Probably they will switch quietly to PostgreSQL once they get around to the matter, and nobody will make a fuss.
Ralph Yarro thanks you.
This just in: Bruce Perens has decided that UserLinux will be built on top of Microsoft Windows instead of using the traditional Linux kernel. Perens, famed founder and leader of the Debian project, said yesterday: "Just like Qt, the Linux kernel is released under a GPL license, which requires developers modifying it to release their source code under the GPL. This prevents commercial solution developers from creating closed-source, proprietery kernel modifications, which would inhibit the adoption of UserLinux."
Perens reportedly approached Linux founder Linus Torvalds to request that he change the Linux kernel license from GPL to LGPL, in order to be more consistent with the GNOME license. Mr. Torvalds apparently refused, at which time Perens managed to negotiate favorable kernel licensing terms from Microsoft.
Mr. Perens had no comment in response to the claim by a spokesperson for TrollTech, the Norway-based company that develops Qt, that their code was actually "freer than Linux", since unlike the Linux kernel, developers can choose to license thier applications under either the GPL or TrollTech's proprietary license that allows close-source development.
"To be absolutely certain about something, one must know everything or nothing about it." -- Olin Miller
That would be really impressive. It is the only thing I can think of that would annoy the Linux community even further! Do it!
Having worked for a bunch of companies, I can tell you that's not the way things work.
A lot of corporate development is in-house. The Troll Tech license and license fees mattter a great deal for that. They matter not only because of the short-term cost, but they also matter because of the long-term control Troll Tech gets over commercial applications.
In fact, Troll Tech's control is a problem even for "free software folks", because the design and direction of Qt is ultimately driven by Troll Tech's commercial interests. And you can't weasel your way out of that fact by arguing that if Troll Tech starts going down the wrong path, people can just fork the GPL'ed version of Qt because the very reason for choosing Qt is KDE's assertion that no open source project could deliver a toolkit of comparable quality.
In fact, another strike against KDE and Qt is the fact that KDE already screwed up big time once. Far from being the result of a careful plan, the current dual-licensing scheme for Qt is the result of Troll Tech averting disaster by changing their license after KDE went on for a couple of years merrily developing software under an open source license incompatible with the QPL. The impression one gets as an outside is that KDE doesn't know what the hell they are doing with licenses. And it doesn't help either that Troll Tech is clearly responsible for killing the Harmony Project, an attempt to develop a more liberally licensed Qt-compatible license, because it would cut into their sales. Neither of those is a big recommendation for KDE or Qt.
And, in fact, some of those in-house applications later become open source. But the decision to open source is not something companies make at the start of a project--it takes time to deal with lawyers and business people. With Qt, we'd have had to pay Troll Tech for commercial development licenses just so that we could start developing only to have wasted that money later when we get the corporate OK to open source.
So, why is it that, so far, there are more commercial Qt applications than Gtk+ applications? Well, first of all, I'm not sure that's true--where is the data? Secondly, the Qt applications I have seen are usually from companies like Adobe, whose Linux offerings basically suck.
But, in any case, until maybe last year, Gtk+ really was behind Qt (after all, it started later as well), but it has now caught up. But before then, there were already plenty of commercial projects in toolkits like Tcl/Tk and wxWindows, both of which have even more liberal licenses than Gtk+.
In my own experience, Qt's license is deeply harmful to Qt's acceptance for commercial projects: many commercial developers just don't want that sort of dependence on a software vendor, let alone a little company from Norway, even if the money didn't matter. But the money does matter. And Qt's license is also harmful to Qt's use for open source projects.
If you don't like Perens's choice, just don't use or support UserLinux. Perens doesn't like KDE's choice (of toolkit), so that's why he isn't using it in the project he is putting together.
KDE made two bets a few years ago: (1) that making a deal with a commercial company was necessary in order to deliver a high quality toolkit, and (2) that a dual-licensed toolkit wouldn't matter to open source developers or commercial acceptance. Looks like KDE is losing both bets: Gtk+ has more than caught up with Qt technically, and choices by open source entities like the FSF and Perens, and choices by companies like Sun, IBM, and HP (of Gnome) indicate that Qt's license does affect its acceptance.
KDE made its choice and its developers and advocates should accept the consequences.
The great irony of UserLinux in this respect is that LGPL gives more freedom to the producer than the consumer (the User). The LGPL gives software producers freedom to use libraries in conjunction with a closed-source application and the GPL does not. The extra freedoms of the LGPL are realised by the companies writing software for UserLinux, not the people using it. This is what Bruce Perens has in mind. He wants to produce a distribution that encourages companies to release software.
This isn't high school. People will use KDE as long as KDE is the best solution for them.
Rather than worrying about losing popularity, try focusing on making KDE the best it can be.
Like I pointed out, installing KDE on UserLinux should be a single command.
apt-get install kde
As for the developers, I don't see what you're worried about. They are the ones making KDE into what they want it to be. Why would they abandon their project?
And the commercial support? Well, only time will tell for that. But the commercial support is usually pretty easy to predict. Give them the best environment for their products and they'll move to it.
If you cannot make KDE a better choice for end users, developers and commercial interests, then why not let those groups make their OWN CHOICE about what to use, develop and develop for?
Open Source is not about lock-in.
Before Qt was dual-licensed, GNU had a project called Harmony to create a GPL clone of Qt.
Anyone remember that project? How far did it get?
If the KDE group and Trolltech had allowed Harmony to go through. We wouldn't be having this discussion. The plain and simple fact is that the KDE group made a decision to use a nonfree (at the time) toolkit. Pragmatic in one way, but not so when fully thought out, as all the discussions have shown. The Gnome group however chose to be pragmatic (use the GTK toolkit) and thought things through. Now here we are, first the toolkit, then Harmony, next Bluecurve, and presently userlinux. KDE can not shake the consequences of their initial decision even though their edifice is GPL. And here we see KDE fighting tooth and nail defending a bad decision, pragmatic (like binary drivers are pragmatic), but still bad, when one looks at the big picture. Maybe it will finally all work out, but some of the KDE groups antics have generated bad blood, and a poor opinion of them overall, even though a great many don't deserve it. Here's to hoping it all works out.
Because it doesn't make sense. It sounds like he's more interested in proprietary, commercial development than Open Source or Free Software, or even, (god forbid) choosing the best software for the job.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
usual channels for a New Program Installation proposal to the IT department remain open.
Tell that to the CEO or SVP Finance. Some users are more equal than others.
-- $G
You mean like the following?
Executive, in instant message to IT: "Would you please install kdinkylittleapp on my machine?"
IT tech: "I'll get right on it."
Executive notices activity on her Alienware machine's hard drive as IT tech logs in through SSH and apt-get installs the app.
IT tech: "Done."
Though it's rather the "short form," it's still a "request" through a "channel." Or if that isn't enough, and the VPs are knowledgeable enough not to intercourse up their computers, just make the topsuits group a member of the devel group to inherit its privileges.
Yeah, no one is seriously considering Firebird at this point; but, like KDE, it would be folly to completely ignore it.
*When* Firebird reaches a stable state, it will be a force to be reckoned with. Who knows, UserLinux may even still be vaporware by then. It would be dumb to choose something else now only to have everyone demand Firebird a year from now.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Who cares? KDE stinks, GNOME stinks. The reason is that XWindows STINKS. The only viable GUI running on a UNIX based system that I have seen is Mac OS X. Thank god they did not build their GUI on top of XWindows. IMHO the only way any GUI has a chance is the project is started from scratch rather than relying on something that I consider inheriently flawed (XWindows). Neither KDE or GNOME are GUIs they are Window managers and like Stephen King said in Christine "You can't polish a turd".
Nick Powers
Encryption: I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to encrypt it...
GNOME apps rock, the desktop east poop.
KDE was a mistake from day one, get over it people.
It is the APPS remember? How much time do you spend fiddling with crap in your UI??? I spend my time in applications, not preferences dialogs.
UserLinux needs for a single DE for it to be "sold" are fine and dandy. Most people are not going to develop for it. Lots of Linux folks don't give a damm if Linux gets anymore uptake than it has today.
As for me I am going to continue to run GTK apps on my KDE because Gnome sucks goat balls.
The bottom line is this effects hardly anyone but a bunch of fanboys and zealots.
All this agaitation is pissing me off though and my feelings for Bruce Perins have fallen to just above Darl Mcbride's right now because we don't need people sturing up shit.
Thanks Bruce for seeding a shit storm when you didn't really have to.
If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
It seems you're reaching for the idea of Buridan's Ass
> What is becoming apparent is that a smallish, vocal fanboy group is prepared to tear any project apart if they do not include their favorite project.
:)
Indeed.. I think Bruce Perens could have avoided a lot of trouble by saying that from the onset that no GUI based on GPL tools like Qt could be used. That would have ruled out KDE from the onset.
Instead, he announced it and he wanted people's opinions on a GUI for it. I guess now it's pretty obvious what he wanted.
> Look how people prefer Firebird over Mozilla.
Really? are there stats on this?
Oh yeah. Google for evilwm. I use it exclusively.
So, let me get this straight - he wants to discourage the use of GPL'd code in UserLinux in order to have businesses create proprietary applications that can not in turn be included into UserLinux because they will not be free?
Sounds like an interesting one-sided ecosystem.
If he took this commercial-friendly argument to its logical conclusion he would dump the GPL'd Linux from UserLinux in favour of BSD. But then it would not be much of a UserLinux, would it?
The basic argument is that a GUI toolkit may be a very unimportant part of the application - applications companies would simply not GPL because their apps do damn smart, trade secret stuff and they'd want it closed. And yet, these programs will need a GUI - even if it's just a bunch of plain objects (buttons, checkboxes, radioboxes, text labels etc.) Don't think of a yet another mp3 player, think projects where 98% of the work is non-GUI.
As such, they don't have a problem with contributing to Gnome, or to the Linux kernel - that's just improving their toolbox. What they want to keep out and proprietary is their own code, interfacing with the toolkit. If you want a similar example, take OS X. They've been voluntarily contributing back to the underlying system, and those using Gnome (and must do so according to the LGPL) are unlikely to have any problem with doing that either.
That being said, I don't think the QT licence is that bad and expensive for a large company. As long as those licenced for QT get to develop with it a lot. It's for the small companies where the QT guy is also the "everything else" guy, that it gets real expensive. And I'd really not want to try a start-up of some small-time shareware using QT. Maybe, if there is a proprietary culture, the devs will go to QT because "Why should these companies profit from MY work?" As of yet though, I don't really see many proprietary Gnome-based apps, so no one is getting an itch from it. But it'll come if the big money starts flowing...
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Why waste energy in political issues, just create new "userlinux" project whit focus on KDE and stop wasting your time arguing.
KDE proposal was excelent and i really really would like to see it happen.
I don't know what the technical term "poopy" is supposed to mean. Gnome is fast enough on modern hardware (even unaccelerated), easy to use, robust, and it looks nice. KDE is no better, and some would argue it has already fallen behind.
But it really doesn't matter whether KDE is still slightly better or worse--it's license is such a huge obstacle that KDE is doomed.
Hell, if they are going after the M$ crowd, make the thing look exactly like windows.
Sera
Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
Gnome is the better "supported" option because it doesn't require royalties for closed source development. This matters in countries where you can buy 3 developer months for single license of Qt (and for 3 developers, you need 3 licenses).
If that is so, how come there aren't any commercial GTK-apps?
Having a real company behind Qt that can provide support and such, is actually an advantage for KDE. Qt is also much nicer to program with, is cross-platform, etc. Sure you have to pay for it, but it's only a small fraction of the cost of a whole project, and it saves manpower because it's such a nice tool to work with.
And then there's the moral issue: because GTK is LGPL, it's practically preventing the use of the GPL for commercial programs. Isn't free software what many have been fighting for? Why not choose a toolkit that has a cost-advantage when used in a GPL-manner then?
This is our experience with RHEL and KDE: since we plan to use Linux in rollouts of our shrink-wrapped software, for telecoms, we need to have top QA and do lots of testing in the preparation phase.
One of the many installation tests was to use the default installation procedure in RHEL, and then see what we get. OK, installed Gnome by default. Then we tried to install KDE. Cant do it! Sounds incredible? We thought that, too. Since we forked 1200 Euros for RHEL, we thought we better start using that golden support (I call it "golden" as it costs an arm and a leg). Believe it or not, after two weeks of wrangling with RedHat support engineers, going back and forth, the case was NOT solved!!
Our dissatisfaction with Redhat support has been quite big, as a consequence of this episode, and RedHat did NOT get into our product solution.
I work in a large european mobile phone company, and we take our business seriously. RedHat didn't. I guess keeping KDE out must be some sort of strategic goal at RedHat, otherwise I totally don't understand their behaviour.
Incidently, I even offered to explain to a RedHat employee why they didn't get in, and guess what, he wasnt even curious!
Sigged!
If anybody can fill these 3 gaps, I'll start considering that argument of "gtk doesn't require royalties for closed source development", despite the fact that you have to use bindings to do OO programming with gtk.
Or is it? Look at what TrollTech say here - TT don't want you using Free Qt on inhouse projects, but the GPL says you can. This makes me distrust TrollTech.
Yeah! they have a record of pissing off the Open Source Community. Come on, be kind. Mail them complaining about that, maybe they correct the FAQ. After all, it's their policy that if you take it for free, you should pay the community back.
If being the default desktop of UserLinux is so important to KDE, why don't they re-implement their desktop ontop of an LGLP'd toolkit?
Pleaaaase. Can you spell demagogy?
If you don't like the distribution, don't use it. Simple as that.
FFS, how many people are going to miss the point? UserLinux is about producing a standard operating system for businesses. To do things like standardise operating system components because it's easier to target a single platform than the constantly moving target that is GNU/Linux.
Keeping both GNOME and KDE libraries in the system will mean more maintenance work. However, taking KDE out means that application vendors will not be able to rely on KDE, Qt or anything of that nature.
In essence, UserLinux is shutting Qt and KDE out of the market. It wouldn't be so bad, but for three glaring problems:
But hey, as long as the end-users can install their own desktop, everything's okay, right? Oh wait - this is a distribution aimed at corporate users - so the end-users won't be installing their own software.
How many times does this need to be pointed out? QT/KDE does NOT require the purchase of a licence to be used in developing commercial products!!
Then why does their Qt Commercial Licensing page state that you should "[u]se the Qt Commercial License to: 1)Build commercial software. 2)Build software that is not sold, but that advances the business goals of a commercial enterprise"?
I know as well as you do that "commercial software" does not equal "closed-source software", but that distinction seems to be lost on TrollTech ; either that or they need to choose their wording more carefully, as they seem to use "commercial" and "non-free" interchangably.
Read the QT FAQ. You can freely (free as in speech and as in beer) develop software for whatever purpose you desire using QT, including commercial purposes.
Not true; if you do, you're apparently in violation of the Qt Free Edition's license. From that selfsame FAQ:
And this barely touches on the fact that Qt Free Edition is not available for Windows or Mac OS X, so my "freedom" in developing software is limited to X11-based platforms; I'm supposed to pay $1550 for the privilege of developing Qt-based applications for Mac and Windows users, regardless of the license I plan to distribute it under.
It is certainly TrollTech's right to license their software however they see fit; however, they don't get to charge developers of commercial software for their toolkit and then complain about not being included in a distribution that seeks to avoid those costs.
Jay (=
KuserLinux