Slashdot Mirror
KDE 3.2 Release Candidate 1 Debuts
danalien writes "Before a early Feb. release of the (stable) KDE 3.2, KDE has today announced the first 'Release Candidate', and hopefully the last pre-release, for its 'Open Source graphical desktop environment for Unix workstations'. Get it from download.kde.org, or use Konstruct if you don't feel like calling configure by yourself."
It helps when you have a good and simple programming environment. QT is so much easier to code in than GTK/GTK+/Glib/Bonobo that it isn't funny. Not to mention KParts.
...Steve
They focus on the software, not on licensing and politics.
Grandma really shouldn't be upgrading ! How many people used Win9x long after ME/NT/XP/2000 came out before upgrading ? More than you'd like to admit. How many people asked their computer-literate friend to upgrade for them, because they couldn't / didn't want to for fear of breaking something because they didn't understand the concepts ?
Just because an upgrade comes out, doesn't mean you have to upgrade !! But I understand the psycology behind it (something new and shiny, or will I be 'missing out' ?)
"I am not bound to please thee with my answers" [William Shakespeare]
KDE has solved the environment issue but is facing an application issue. People will compare Konq to Mozilla (which has in a way become a de facto GNOME browser), but I will call Mozilla a leader here. The Gimp DESTROYS any KDE equivalent. AbiWord and OpenOffice (soon to be Gnome-ified) blow away KOffice and Gaim also triumphs over its KDE competitors. KDevelop is the only app space I know where KDE is the clear winner.
Could it be because one GUI toolkit arose with ease of use and programming in mind, and the other arose simply to make a political statement?
Actually, on any distro with a good package manager, it is that easy. You start up the package manager (Synaptic or whatever) and click the upgrade button. Konstruct is just for those who want KDE right *now* instead of waiting a week for packagers to release binaries.
:)
Think of it as 0-day KDE warez
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Especially since it's very true. I have nothing against Gnome as a user, but as a developer? Oof.
...Steve
Don't you think it's a bit more complicated than that? There are two completely opposite methodologies. One was to write a new toolkit (Qt, at that time) to do everything, while the other was to reuse everything that was available (gtk from Gimp, ...) and plug different things together. In some way, I'd say KDE/Qt is closer to the Windows idea (integrated stuff), while Gnome/Gtk is closer to the unix philosophy (put lots of small packages together). I'm not saying one is better/worse, but KDE and gnome really different in terms of development philosophy.
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
Well, the main difference is that the KDE fans like KDE better, while the Gnome fans like Gnome better.
I'm sure this debate can (and probably will) rage on for years. Many people reading this probably won't understand this reply and many others because the poor "noobie" (his own word) who asked the question got immediately smacked with a Troll mod for his curiosity, so he will be filtered out by many. To that moderator: Can you please be nice to the n00bs so more people will be open to Linux?
I'm beginning to use Linux on a desktop at home, and I am glad I've had someone helpful who has been willing to answer these kinds of questions for me. You catch more flies with honey, people.
We may experience some slight turbulence and then...explode. -Capt. Mal Reynolds
I also once entered in a compilation issue in to the bug tracking system, with a solution. I received an email from a guy in .nl within a very short period of time telling me that it had already been fixed in the next version (silly me for not checking!). Compared with my experiences with Mozilla's bug tracking system, I found it quite shocking!
To me, KDE is the best thing that has happened to Linux when it comes to bringing it to the desktop. These guys have done a fabulous job in a relatively short period of time. We had to have a rock solid kernel and system first, now these guys are rapidly filling in the blanks from the user's perspective.
Erm. KDE/Qt isn't any more monolithic than GNOME/GTK+. All the stuff that GNOME has as completely seperate libraries (libxml, etc) are seperate modules of Qt. In Qt4, Qt will become even more modularized. And KDE is completely component-based. KHTML is just a component somewhere that any application can use. Contrast that to GNOME's browser, Epiphany, that doesn't use Bonobo to embed Gecko.
KDE's development style is probably more monolithic than GNOME's, but the code is highly modular.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Well, I think the idea of a C++ desktop is just swell, but the whole meta-object compiler thing is a turn-off, as is the non-standard string class, and such. ;) /., and if they can comment on the likelihood of Qt getting more in synch with mainstream C++.
IANAT. Qt has to be understood in the context that it was way ahead of its time with the signals/slots business, far ahead of C++ standardization. Props to Trolltech.
Nevertheless, the better long-term bet seems to lie with boost, wherein is much goodness, at least on the backend. There was some fascinating discussion of a boost interface library a while ago, which served to point out the diversity of the requirements, but it doesn't seemed to have condensed as far as vaporware yet. So Qt's "yeah, but we happen to exist" argument trumps any theoretical whining I can offer.
One wonders if any Trolltechies read
Disclaimer: my knowledge of Qt comes from reading a circa-KDE 3.0 tome.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
..."while the other was to reuse everything that was available (gtk from Gimp, ...) and plug different things together..."
According to the GNU project, GNOME was started because they were afraid QT would overtake the free desktop in marketshare and they would have yet another non-free desktop that was popular (much like CDE at the time)
If you look into history of the GNOME project, and this idea, the GNU project even started a free QT compatible widget library to replace QT. But since GNOME got more popular, the GNU project spun off GNOME and killed the free QT replacement project.
Today, what you say might be true somewhat. But the start of GNOME was purely a political statement.
Two infinite things: your stupidity and mine. But I'm not sure about the latter. If my sig offends you, I'm sorry.
Except that the whole point of the moderation is not to downmod those you disagree with (although it happens waaay too frequently) but to engage in discussion with them to prove them wrong. :)
FWIW, obviously I like programming with Qt and KDE much more, but I know that that's my opinion. I wouldn't ever downmod someone for having a different opinion than mine.
-clee
Funny how your picking apps that were never meant to be "Gnome" apps in the first place. These were all independant apps that were NOT built from the ground up to be Gnomified. Mozilla is the de facto "GNOME" browser? Since when? I could just as easily say "use that new neat QT wrapper thingy that makes gtk apps behave like QT apps". Who has all of the "good apps" then?
Gnome has a habit of just picking the best apps and then "adopting" them so I don't think its fair to start saying these apps are blowing away KDE counterparts. Since when can't you run Gimp, Mozilla, OpenOffice.org in KDE? You can, thus your point is moot. Try and get over the whole Gnome or KDE has better apps thingy. Be happy that you can run any of these apps easily from any Window Manager.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
Don't forget that in addition to the commercial edition and the GPL edition, you can also license Qt under the QPL.
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
This comment is so ass-backwards as to be virtually buried in it's own behind. KDE used an existing toolkit -Qt, while Gnome decided try to make a new one based on the custom widgets used by a single app (Gimp). KDE is build on a component model where everything is a KPart and most apps result from combining them. Very few Gnome apps are Bonobo enabled. Why do people persist in making such fundamental mistakes? I would suggest it is because they haven't actually bothered to do anything as 'complicated' as build the systems and try them.
If people on slashdot want to be taken seriously they really ought to make use of the freedom they are given and actually use some of the source code we donate.
Controversial in some ways since you cannot develop commercial software with it without paying a pretty expensive license.
No - you can't develop proprietary software with it without paying a license that's priced around average for libraries of this sort. Since it's also available under the GPL, there's nothing to stop you selling your QT software as long as it's GPL'd.
Why is this controversial? Nobody complains that useful libraries like GNU readline are under the GPL - and in the case of readline, you don't even have the option of buying a proprietary license, because the FSF ain't selling one! But somehow that is "good", whereas the same license applied to QT is "bad".
Posted anonymously because I really am a coward - and while I don't think the above is trolling or flamebait, I don't trust the moderators to realise. Guys, if you want to mod this down, please use "redundant", since this debate has been had to death many a time. Although given the grandparent's igorance of the issue, maybe setting out the arguments yet again isn't actually redundant for everyone.
Adblocks are only the beginning. Deanimate GIFs, block banners, rewrite HTML/JS on the fly, replace HTTP header entries, and control by host if you want. There's a lot you can do.
I'd never depend on a browser to do security work in linux, as there are better specialized tools for that.
Gnome advocates now use QT's GPL licensing as a weapon against it
Well, some of them do. Others don't.
The reason the FSF wrote the LGPL, and not just the GPL, is that there are times when LGPL is appropriate. Many people (including Bruce Perens) think that a Linux distro intended for enterprise use should make it easy to write proprietary software, for those who want to do it... and thus think the LGPL would be a better license for the toolkit used in such a Linux distro.
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Well, Bruce Perens is wrong. If he was right, we would have lots and lots of commercial GTK+-apps, and very very few commercial Qt-apps, since GTK+ has a "better" license. But it seems to me that Qt is more popular when it comes to commercial software than GTK+ is. Maybe you have to pay for Qt, but then again, you get quite alot for your money (excellent documentation and support come to mind). And it's not like you have to sell your testicles to pay for Qt. It's not THAT expensive.
Yes, maybe GTK+ is cheaper, since you don't have to pay for it. But still, lots and lots of developer choose to pay for Qt, instead of getting GTK+ for free, why?
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.