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's 'Release Kandidate'. Learn to spell.
KDE is pretty kool. Aktually it's uber kool. I've konstantly kaught myself kakkling at their konstant play with K and K. Err.. K and K. Damn K and K... you know what i mean
Remeber the mirrors http://www.kde.org/mirrors/ftp.php Rus
CPanel + Root from $35/mo - 10% off with discount code SLASHDOT
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
I have to also say how impressed I am with the guys developing KDE. We once picked up a bug somewhere, mailed them with the problem,ect. Within a half an hour I think, they posted a patch for that specific problem. Amazing.
Of course, I'm a bit known for tilting at windmills
KDE 3.2 Feature Plan
main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
That's nice. And appropriate, since KDE is Tougher Than Leather. :)
You are not the customer.
Honestly, I think KDE is a technical masterpiece. It gives me a GUI which can easily be configured in pretty much every conceivable way.
GNOME, MacOS, and Windows just don't have that kind of room for personality.
i've been using KDE3.2 built from source since the early alphas. even then it was rock-solid stable with just a few rough edges. once i knew all of the workarounds, i migrated my production/work environment up to 3.2 as well, for the cool/useful features. highly recommended upgrade.
Does anyone know how many of Apple's changes have made it into Konqueror?
It would be interesting to know how useful the Safari team's contributions have been.
What about K3B, Quanta+, eric3, and scribus? There are tons more great KDE apps at the new KDE-Apps.org. The future of KDE application development looks bright. Remember that you're comparing KDE apps against the complete set of all other open-source applications. I think KDE is doing pretty well, myself.
main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
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, it really depends.
I like Konq better than Epiphany (Mozilla is not GNOME app, the GNOME project's PR aside) though Epiphany does have better rendering courtesy of Gecko. However, the gap is quickly narrowing, thanks partially to Safari's rendering fixes.
AbiWord and Gnumeric are great apps, but KOffice (the 1.3RC) is pretty competitive. And OpenOffice is to be KDE-ified in 2.x as well. That's the whole point of the NWF --- toolkit independent OpenOffice.
I'd say that Kopete is better than Gaim. Its got much better integration with KDE than Gaim has with GNOME. The only feature that's really missing is reliable AIM file-transfer.
The GIMP is not a GNOME app (as its developers repeatedly keep saying) so its irrelevent. Its UI is completely alien to both GNOME and KDE, so GIMP with the GTK-Qt theme is about as good as GIMP inside GNOME.
And don't forget about Quanta, the best graphical HTML editor on Linux, as well as Kate, which is a much better programmer's editor than GEdit.
In 3.2, Kontact should also give Evolution a run for its money. KMail in 3.2 has been getting a lot of very positive reviews.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
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
"The what?"
"The bolour supplement!"
"The colour supplement?"
"Yes. I'm sorry I can't say the letter B."
"C?"
"Yes, that's right. It's all due to a trauma I suffered when I was a spoolboy. I was attacked by a bat."
"A cat?"
"No, a bat."
"Can you say the letter 'K'?"
"Oh yes. Khaki, king, kettle, Kuwait, Keble Bollege Oxford."
"Why don't you use the letter 'K' instead of the letter 'C'?"
"What do you mean
"Yes."
"Kolour... Oh, that's very good, I never thought of that."
Lemon curry???
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.
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.
I think the "KDE is monolithic" viewpoint arises from the excellent integration between KDE applications and the desktop. Because they all operate as though they're a single, large piece of code, people assume they are. Ironically, it's the modularity of the code base that makes such seamless integration possible for a distributed development team.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
"The main idea remains that the idea of gnome was to to reuse as much stuff as possible (even when it shouldn't have), while KDE wrote much of these "from scratch" and has its stuff "more integrated" (just think about window managers)."
Actually...
According to Stallman and the GNU project, the idea of GNOME was to write a desktop to specifically replace KDE. The idea was that QT was not 100% free at the time, and the GNU project saw KDE's popularity as hurting the goals of the GNU project's operating system vision. So they started 2 projects: one to create a free replacement for QT, and another to create a replacement for the already free KDE. Since QT was GPL'd, the free replacement project was killed. But the GNOME project was already started and the developers decided to keep on working. In the process, GNOME made different choices on many aspects. Choosing to use CORBA to do their component technology was just one of the many different (than KDE's existing technology) choices the GNOME project chose. It just turns out that CORBA/bonabo (the Network Object Model part of GNOME) never got incorporated into many GNOME applications, and so now GNOME applications == GTK/glib applications.
When you think of the GNOME project, you should think of turning a primitive incomplete widget toolkit (the Gimp ToolKit) into what GTK+ is today, plus a set of applications which use this toolkit, plus guidelines on how these applications should behave. When you think of KDE today, you should think about the same things, but using already developed QT insted of GTK+ along with the ability to embed current applications into new ones efficienatly.
None of this has anything to do with KDE wanting to re-write everyting. In fact, they started with existing complete QT. and GNOME started with an incomplete GTK toolkit. The GNOME project is basically the GTK+ project combined with application rewriting with GTK+. So which project is the one that did the massive rewrites? I think that would be GNOME.
If you consider writing a program using GTK+ widget set and glib a GNOME application, you probably don't know the definition of Network Object Model Environment. (Hint, several KDE applications use such features, but most "GNOME" applications don't use bonobo.)
Two infinite things: your stupidity and mine. But I'm not sure about the latter. If my sig offends you, I'm sorry.