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.
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.
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
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...
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
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.