Slashdot Mirror
UserLinux Will Support KDE
kollum writes "Bruce Perens has revealed that UserLinux will now support KDE commercially. It seems there is a demand for a KDE plan afterall."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
...and I quote:
;)
"I already have a customer asking for Perens LLC to provide commercial support for KDE on the UserLinux platform. And we will do so, even though KDE is not the chosen GUI of the UserLinux project. This is an
option for any UserLinux service provider."
So, in other words, if your customers want it, you should provide it. Makes sense to me.
libertarianswag.com
Thats the one driving force, even above open source, that I think pulls people to GNU/Linux...
I mean people clammer about window manager themes almost as much as the window managers themselves...
Think of the solitary driving force, it's choice... Even as far to the point where if you don't like a certain aspect of a piece of software you can look at the source and change it...
So, to exclude any piece of software would, at heart, be hypocritical, given the open source method.
Just my two cents as a staunch Gnome user...
It just means he has some legal protections now.
I think they know it looks bad, that's why Plastik was made, and I'm pretty sure it will be the default in 3.2, but I'm not 100% sure.
What Perens is saying is that is own consulting company will offer support for KDE as a service provider. Gnome is still the only chosen GUI for UserLinux.
Slow news day perhaps...
Well yeah. SCO's down.
KFG
Important Stuff:
Please try to keep posts on topic.
Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads.
Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)
If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.
Problems regarding accounts or comment posting should be sent to CowboyNeal
This is just a rehash of what Bruce Perens has been saying all along; even though UserLinux's standard GUI desktop environment will be GNOME, KDE will still work on it, and will be supported on demand for customers who want it.
So really, nothing has changed.
Jay (=
It won't. The default theme is always the one used for the screenshots in the documentation, and that at the monent is Keramic.
It may become the default in a later version.
Of course, distros will make their own choice about what default to use.
This is not about UserLinux including KDE
or supporting it. This is about Perens LLC offering
support for UserLinux with KDE added on for paying
customers. Perens has always maintained
that this is an option for any support provider,
as any support provider may offer support for,
say, UserLinux with MySQL added on.
This also means that a service provider supporting UserLinux
does not have to support KDE (or MySQL for that
matter) to live up to their advertising.
Nope, Keramik will still be the default. A major change in themes with a minor release is foolish. Besides a lot of people like the fact that Keramik is actually unique, not a rip off of someone else's designs.
smeat!
"Let's not bicker about who killed who." Monty Python
And there are probably many, MANY other contributions he has given which I have overlooked..
So please, do give some consideration toward what he has done for all of the Linux community...
And now he's using his position to attempt to leverage the amount of choice that I have.
Fuck Bruce Perens, and the horse he rode in on.
That all said, as a kde user since 1999 and frequent gnome lurker, I simply don't see a compelling reason to switch. KDE users are probably still a majority ya know. Most of europe uses KDE and here in brasil its a sizeable majority of those I work with. Popularity does effect markets if you care to have one.
Great move, I now care about userlinux.
People don't care and are sometimes ignorant.
They figure that:
1. They like KDE.
2. Since I like KDE, KDE is better.
3. I don't like gnome.
4. People who think gnome is better are stupid.
5. This is free software.
6. Since people work for free software they don't get paid.
7. People should spend time on KDE because it's better then GNOME.
8. Bruce Parens doesn't like KDE or QT, he made gnome.
9. Gnome sucks.
10. Perens sucks.
11. Developement time taken away from KDE for Gnome.
12. KDE is better.
13. It does stuff like copy paste better.
14. MS sucks.
15. MS is to make money.
16. Redhat is to make money.
17. Parens makes money off of Gnome.
18. MS sucks,
19. Rehdat then sucks because they make money.
20. Paresn sucks X 2
This is the big one:
21. Gnome gets more commercial support, which means that more developement time goes to Gnome instead of KDE (which is better). I don't understand because the QT liscence fee is so small that it doesn't matter. Why don't they like KDE?
22. Suse used KDE,
23. Suse rocked
24. KDE rocked
25. Suse now will use Ximian which is gnome which is Parens.
26. Parens sucks X 5.
etc etc
Now that's logic for you.
... because that's what his customers are asking for.
It was stupid not to in the first place.
Bruce's decisions about UL and the exclusion of anything Qt has undergone numerous transformations. First, it was because Qt couldn't produce a 'cottage industry' of commercial support. When this was pointed out to be demonstrably false, Bruce retreated into the, 'but Qt isn't free' argument... knowingly choosing to obfuscate the old 'Free (libre) VS free (gratis) canard of the community. When Free Software developers called him on this reprehensible tactic, Bruce retreated into the, 'but we just can't possibly support everything' argument.
Now, Bruce is learning from real commercial companies that KDE/Qt support is mandatory and he's having to distance himself from the craving anti-Qt trolls on his own list. The sad thing? Bruce missed a valuable opportunity to really work with KDE developers and the broader community by choosing instead to cater to his own bias and that of his sympathetic community of anti-Qt trolls. Now, he has lost a lot of his credibility in the eyes of many.
..wants something that works and is supported. As both KDE and Gnome are supported thats a good thing
Rus
CPanel + Root from $35/mo - 10% off with discount code SLASHDOT
BAD BAD BAD BAD!!!
(Someone shows him money &...)
What was bad is now GOOD GOOD GOOD!!!
I used Gnome for about a year, and it lacked many basic and oft-used things, like right-click make a shortcut/unarch/move. Also it was shakey as heck -- unreliable.
I'm happy for those who like Gnome, but K just gets the job done, for me. And fast, too.
My only wish is that X could be re-written to be a common object broker to the hardware, so that creation od a new window-manager is within an average-person's reach. Or else X should eliminated altogether. Its current mission is obsolete.
Campaign finance reform is national security.
Ignore KDE and I ignore userlinux, its that simple.
...if UserLinux is ever more than VaporWare.
That said, I believe that both should be offered from the get-go.
This all may mean limited success for userlinux but probably doen't diminish his past achievments much.
Never mind the GNOME/KDE fanboy wars, I'm more interested in another holy war: plan text versus HTML mail. The info page for the mailing list Perens wrote to says 'Please use HTML email when sending to the list.' Why on earth would anyone actively want that? But he seems to have broken his own rule, since his message is plain text.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
You are free to use any distribution you like.
# Impotent Stiff: Please try to keep pants on.
# Try to touch other people's penises instead of your own.
# Lick other people's rims before pissing in your own mouth.
# Use a clear subject that describes what you are about to do.
# Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments are encouraged by our pro-homosexual moderators
# If you want replies to your comments brought to you, consider the consequences of CmdrTaco visiting your house and foot-fisting your son, your father, your grandfather, you and your canary.
Perens has given a good deal of his time and energy to the open source community... and as another poster already mentioned, is a frequent /. contributor.
/. without ACs taking potshots at everyone...
Not to mention (near and dear to my heart) the fact that he's an active HAM radio guy.
Ah well, it wouldn't be
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
I think what Linux on the Desktop needs is something just like X, but with server-side widget-drawing and window management code. The client-server design is what makes X great, and should be kept. But with a default widget set, there'd be one place to change fonts, window decorations, colors, etc. And there'd be less repetition.
It wouldn't be inflexible. A good X replacemnt would have an X-server client so that X programs could run as part of it. So it would still be easy to use your own toolkit if you really wanted to. And the server would have a plugin system to allow a wide range of widget and window styles.
At the moment, I run KDE. I suppose X's architecture is better than Windows's putting everything in kernel-space, but it still pains me. I can't wait until I can easily run something like PicoGUI or Fresco on my desktop.
Perens LLC ... hmm ... does that mean that Bruce Perens stopped living on other people's money and starts working?
/. again!
Unless you consider vaporware a real product, it looks like he's still just being the usual windbag. Maybe if he talks about UserLinux long enough, someone else will actually implement it. Then he can add it to his resume so that people know he started the project. Oh, that reminds me, it's a new month. Bruce, it's time to post your resume here on
Suse has made clear they plan on staying with kde at least for the "mid term" . My guess they are more interested in mono then gnome.
I already have a customer asking for Perens LLC to provide commercial
support for KDE on the UserLinux platform. And we will do so, even
though KDE is not the chosen GUI of the UserLinux project. This is an
option for any UserLinux service provider.
For some reason it makes sense. In a capitalist way Perens will make money by including KDE into Userlinux. Obviously this customer must be worth some support money if he backtracked this quickly.
However he may have to compete with Novell on this since SuSE is predominately KDE based and if he wants to take from that pool of potentials (Novell customers reluctant to switch distros if that means a new desktop for their users to get acquainted with)
Of course Bruce may or may not have been motivated to create UserLinux if it held no real benefit to him.
Who, like ESR hasn't written a piece of code that has been widely accepted in the past 3 years.
Who, while trying to be PC with his 'social contract' doesn't call HP and other companies to the carpet because it might hurt his consulting revenue.
Lets other do the grunt work of the SCO research and then posts stupid articles like "THE DDOS is Bad!"
You never should have given Perens your root password! I knew it would come back to bite you in the ass.
Good news two days before 03.02.2003 - the release day of KDE 3.2.0 :-)
It would help if it wasn't so fugly and was unique.. people would rather a copy of a nice theme then a unique fugly one... Plastick should be the default, it will attract a lot of people to KDE...
...titled "UserLinux - The Leaning Linux Tower of Babel?"
There are several KDE-only distributions around (Xandros, Lycoris, Lindows), yet no GNOMErs seem to care all that much.
The minute someone tries to create a GNOME-only desktop system, like UserLinux, a flock of people (slashbots) go mental about it. What is the point? There is plenty of room for an integrated GNOME-only desktop.
Choice is good people say, but including both desktop-systems make integration issues a lot more difficult, and resources could be better spent elsewhere.
Plus if choice is good, then having the choice of a GNOME-only desktop is good. Include KDElibs and Qt, and people can still run their KDE-apps.
So what? I live in Linz, Austria, does that make me an evil mass-murderer?
A monkey is doing the real work for me.
Bruce: Gtk can't support a coveted cottage industry of proprietary developers... -- most of my customers ask to make KDE the default these days. So lets just switch to KDE. Gtk will still be available for backwards compatibility though ...
The UserLInux group is not a I repaet not supporting KDE..Bruce just outlined hwo an independent Vendor group could support KDE within using UserLinux for their customers..
UserLinux is still only using GNOME
Don't Tread on OpenSource
From the discussion it looks like his company is supporting it as a provider not that it is going to be in there as an install default (although if it is in there as an optional install seems unclear).
Different Linux distributions exist because they are designed for a different purpose. Trying to augment various, unique features of these well established distributions will inevitably reduce user choice. Surely, creating a standardized, "super-distro" is contrary to open-source philosophy.
If there is an attempt to create such a distribution, it should at least have a firm base. Support for new hardware is one of the factors preventing Windows users migrating to Linux, such a project should not use a distribution as outdated as Debian.
I think we should get something clear. I know some people have gone overboard in reaction to his decision about KDE in UserLinux, but this particular decision is the reason I have written.
I am a long time KDE user, and found his reasons for dismissing KDE very thin. They came across to me (and evidently many others) more like a re-hash of the old QT/GTK wars than a valid technical reason for making the decision. If he wants to make the personal choice of selecting Gnome for UserLinux, just say so. He will lose some users over this issue, and that is his choice. Evidently there are some users he is not willing to lose, as they are paying customers. That is his choice as well.
My choice is which distro to use, and it will be one that is willing to support KDE.
Please don't go around making generic statements (I know others have been making them as well) about why some of us object to making a technical decision based on non-technical reasoning.
Oh, wei !
Mod someone up the parent. If I had a point left, I'd give it as 'Funny'. Not too funny, no, not very funny; but: funny, hei.
Surely more funny than troll. Do we have cynical ?
Look at the last paragraph: Anonymous Coward doesn't mean what he says.
Ah, you modded him down for Anti-Americanism, then ?
He has a business empire to worry about, afterall - Books, software, consulting - cut him some slack. He is allowed to change his open source views each week when it hurts his pocketbook.
The article linked misspells "konquering" as "conquering." I find this particularly irritating as this comes from kdenews, whose editors should really know better!
I finally had the chance to compare Gnome (2.4) and KDE (3.1.4) head-to-head. While there are things I like about Gnome, I came away feeling that KDE was the better desktop overall. Specifically:
.
While I prefer Mozilla as my browser, Konqueror is a good compliment to it as it will render Microsoft specific pages better than Mozilla. Galeon and Epiphany render the same as Mozilla.
.
I need to get to my office files via FTP and KDE is not only more intuitive, but I can't even get Nautilus to get to all my files because of the non-standard set up of the server.
.
.
Don't get me wrong, I think Gnome is good and I can even see some people prefering it. In fact, there are some things about Nautilus that I really like. However, KDE better suits my needs right now.
A goal is a dream with a deadline
"The minute someone tries to create a GNOME-only desktop system, like UserLinux, a flock of people (slashbots) go mental about it. What is the point? There is plenty of room for an integrated GNOME-only desktop."
That's one of the reasons I've lost a lot of respect for the QT/KDE community. The problem's not with the code so much as it is with the community and their handling of issues. From the original QT license issue, to the Harmony, and straight to the Red Hat integration effort, and now this. I read some serious character assasination of Bruce Perens by people I know who write KDE software *cough*Quanta*cough*. Quite frankly the KDE community needs to get the loose cannons off the mike, and get some PR person to front for them before another incident comes up (and you can bet money, more incidents will come up) and they drive more people away.
uuhmm.. what planet are you on. He is building a distro for gods sake not running depenguinator on your home machines or something. I dont see you getting up in arms because Knopix or Smoothwall dont have your favorite [insert desktop theme/bell/whistle here].
Not becasuse I don't like KDE, I really do.
But it's sad to see that they couldn't focus on what I assume they liked the best.
Now we probably end up with another KDE support fiasco a la Red Hat. It would be much better if people who liked and was good at KDE created pure KDE distros and people who prefered Gnome did Gnome distros.
It's usually better to download and complie KDE yourself on a Gnome oreinted distro ( I guess the same is true for Gnome on KDE oriented distros)
God is REAL! Unless explicitly declared INTEGER
Who, while trying to be PC with his 'social contract' doesn't call HP and other companies to the carpet because it might hurt his consulting revenue.
Personally, I'm not about to let any software with a "social contract" attached to it anywhere near my shop.
Nor am I about to acquire software for my company that an an ideologue like Bruce Perens has anything to do with.
If I'm going to be using a Linux distribution for a commercial purpose, I want it to be designed to include software for the simple reason that it's the best software available for the task. Not because it supports some two-bit socialist's political agenda.
I'm a Gnome user myself, nonetheless this guy's attitude puts me off in a real big way.
He was a primary author of the Debian Social Contract..
That would be reason enough to run like hell away from any project he's involved with.
Now, I'm all for more distros, but there comes a time when reinventing the wheel for the seven billionth time is less than useful.
--
If I actually could spell I'd have spelled it right in the first place.
You will find even more to like when 3.2 is out on Monday. I am running a pre-release here, and it is faster, Konqueror seems less dodgy on rendering sites, and there are a range of new facilities,
does that mean that Bruce Perens stopped living on other people's money and starts working?
Are you kidding? He makes a living being the Jesse Jackson of the open source movement.
Count on Bruce Perens to promptly get in front of every open source parade that's already left without him.
I think they know it looks bad, that's why Plastik was made, and I'm pretty sure it will be the default in 3.2
Plastik was made because the author had an itch. It won't be the default KDE theme, but will be included in the set of "extra" stuff in the kdeartwork package.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
KDE was cooked up in the same country that started both World Wars, embraced philosophies of destruction and hate (such as Nazism and Fascism), and spawned evil murderous maniacs such as Adolf Hitler. ...but that very same country "spawned" also Ludwig van Beethoven, Albert Einstein, Immanuel Kant and Oscar Schindler.
I don't take this as a personal offence, since I'm not German. However I don't think people should be insulted just because they were born on the same land as the worst criminal in the history of mankind. It's not their fault.
Let's make an agreement: you don't judge the goodness of the Germans by taking Hitler as an example and I don't judge the intelligence of the Americans by taking you as an example.
i know that a comparison of the technological state of these two desktops is difficult. but let me try to explain why i think it's actually gnome that's leading the field...
;).
:)
the fundemantal difference between the kde and gnome crowd is the development style. there are two kinds of open source developers: the 'depth first'- and the 'breadth first' people.
kde surely falls into the second category. whenever someone arguments for kde it's the same point: feature richness. (compare kde vs. gnome to emacs vs. vi
gnome, on the other hand, can be seen in the 'depth first' camp. it's progressing more slowly because a lot of things get tweaked and fixed before developers move on to much requested new features.
you can have a look at the base libraries too, it's the same developing wise: qt has always been more rich than gtk, and also felt nicer to work with... but please have a look at how the qt (programming) interface developed since 1.0, and then compare an early libgtk to libgtk--. latter is now one of the most powerful toolkits available, even if i'd still consider it unfinished. qt has everything you can think of,
but unfortunately people at trolltech seem to ignore recent c++ features, still relying on moc to patch language problems which are long gone...
have a look at kde vs. gnome two years ago. bad game for gnome.
have a look at both now. gnome catched up huge!
just extrapolate with a little fantasy: in another two years there will be kde 4.0, the everything but a kitchen sink (tm) desktop manager, and gnome 4.0, if still lacking one or the other bleeding edge feature, a mature, polished software bundle...
that's my prophecy: see it coming true...
Finally someone understands what "Open Source" means.
If Bruce won't include KDE with UL, that does not mean that other people cannot do so.
All that this article is saying is that a CUSTOMER will be PAYING Bruce to do some ADDITIONAL work for that customer that is above and beyond what you get with stock UL.
And there was never ANYTHING said about UL that would have prevented anyone else from doing the same thing for any other customer.
A fat guy with acne. Fuck him.
His COMPANY is willing to provide KDE on UL for a PAYING CUSTOMER.
He is NOT saying that KDE will be included with UL.
He never said that KDE could NOT support a "cottege industry". What he had said was that he wanted to give anyone setting up a "cottege industry" the option to do so without having to pay any license fees to anyone.
He never said that QT wasn't free. He said that, in this instance, he wanted the LGPL instead of the GPL. Again, this is for his "cottege industry".
He has still NOT changed his choice to limit the software included in UL. He still isn't including KDE, but his company will add it on FOR A PRICE.
Hey, if you don't like UL, then don't use it. If it was based on poor choices, then it will fail.
For my part, seeing that Bruce ALREADY has a PAYING CUSTOMER lined up for his company, it seems he has made the correct choice. Bruce will have credibility amongst the people who use UL. I'm sure he doesn't lose any sleep over what other people think.
Nobody summarized them this time, so...
Gnome uses GTK+ which is LGPL. Both FSS and proprietary software writers can use it without paying anybody.
KDE uses QT which is dual-licensed GPL and "pay us if you sell an application":
- FSS developers MUST release their software as GPL.
- Proprietary developers MUST pay.
As a software developer, you are better with Gnome or Microsoft than with QT. If all you release is GPL, then it does not matter. If all you ever want to use is GPL, then it does not matter. But if you want to see Adobe Photoshop on Linux, expect your stupid QT license issues to matter, because Photoshop will not be sold with QT.
---
I spent the last week switching between Gnome (RedHat) and KDE (Slackware and a little SuSE) about hourly. I like KDE slightly better AS A USER, but I would not write commercial software for it.
I spend my life entertaining my brain.
#1. UL will not include KDE.
#2. UL will be based upon Debian.
#3. Because UL is based upon Debian, it will be very easy to add KDE packages.
#4. Some companies will want to pay for support to get what they want.
You've been stuck in the Windows world for too long. In a truly competitive market, 3rd parties would be able to package the OS to meet the customer's requirements. Bruce's company (not UserLinux) is offering that service, for a price.
it's about not even providing qt, so that no kde applications can run. It's about Perens not being able to give one good reason for his decision. It's about Perens simply deciding while declaring User Linux to be a community effort.
Q: Bruce, Why did you choose "UserLinux" if it's actually an Enterprise distro? The name might mislead people it believing that its focus is on the desktop.
Bruce: It sounded more community oriented. Besides, if I was really interested in end-lusers, I would contribute to Mandrake. The neat thing about an enterprise distro is the ability to shove it down the throats of the corporate minnons whether they like it or not; I only have to sell the idea to a clueless PHB. Quite frankly, because of our weak desktop offerings, no one will use it voluntarily. Rather than improving the desktop and letting people choose Linux, we found a better way to get Linux on the desktop.
Q: Is that why you were cold towards KDE in the past, developing a better desktop would only get in the way of your plans?
Bruce: Your point Being?
"Never mind the gnome/kde/redhat/mandrake/debian/gentoo crap, just use Windows" the manager said.
Perens made two more announcements:
1) UserLinux will not include the Linux kernel by default.
2) Perens, LLC. has been contracted by a customer to offer support for the Linux kernel.
Who is this Bruce Perens anyway?
Doesn't seem to me like his project is that much greater than any other.
There are thousands of cool projects out there. so what's the big deal?
America stands for truth, liberty and justice? Really thats why your cretinous president lied his arse off for going to war in Iraq. America has also denied palestinians their freedom and justice for the last 50 years whilst it financed and bankrolled the brutal occupation of their land by jewish immigrants - its still funding the current wall of racism being built.
I use GNOME cause I like it not because of its ideals or its corrupt and morally decadent country of origin.
BTW, patriotism is a virtue of the vicious (as said by Oscar Wilde). Patriotism = warmongering + brutal violence + intolerance. Patirotism is evil!
That was pretty funny, especially with the echoed use of the emoticon.
did he even mention anything about you being "an eveil mass-murderer?"
obviously the poster was trying to clarify a fact and not set an objective towards you..
so just chill out Francis, and go sit in a corner
OK. I picked a REALLY bad example. Thanks for the link. (That was a really fast response. Do you work for Trolltech?)
At least I said "Adobe Photoshop", not just "Adobe". Your link is about "Adobe Photoshop Album", which is just a picture viewer with basic fixes.
Is QT so much better that all companies are willing to pay for QT for the next decade rather than assist GNU with improving GTK+?
Or was Adobe prototyping a new program they needed because every digital camera comes with one and they might lose marketshare, some developer used QT for the prototype, and it shipped before they got around to replacing the toolkit?
My point was that using QT severely limits your choice of licenses. Part of MSWindows' success was that developers never worried about paying to distribute their programs. Microsoft even provided free libraries for distribution. Gnome follows that pattern. I just installed GTK+ on a MSWindows PC without paying for it. Can I sell programs based on QT without giving Trolltech money? Is there a good business justification for giving Trolltech some of my profits?
I spend my life entertaining my brain.
This is the best Bruce Perens post I've read so far. I fell out of my chair. So much insight with so few words. Thank You
Is UserLinux a new version of RedHat Linux?
Fuck Bruce Perens, and the horse he rode in on.
Someone else can take Bruce, but I'd be more than happy to do his horse. Once you've had horse, you never go back!
...if UserLinux is ever more than VaporWare.
If you're claiming it's vaporware, why are you linking to an article with instructions on how to install the (vaporous) UserLinux on top of an existing Debian unstable system?
UserLinux will have its own install CDs when the next stable release of Debian ("sarge") is released, as UserLinux plans to use Debian's new installer.
Jay (=
What if MSWindows had the toolkit choices that KDE currently has? You write a program. You have 2 choices:
1. Give your program away for free. (And watch MS bundle it with the next service pack.) Or
2. Give money to Microsoft for the priviledge of selling software to be used on their OS.
Those are the choices when using QT with KDE:
1. Give your program away for free under the GPL.
2. Give money to Trolltech for the priviledge of selling software to be used on KDE.
Microsoft realized that they needed to encourage development of software by making it free to distribute programs. They benefited because the more programs written for their OS, the more people bought their OS.
Trolltech does not own KDE. They do not make money for every copy of KDE used in the world. They must make their money by charging for the toolkit, or by charging for every copy of the toolkit that is not used for free software.
You would think Stallman would prefer this model since it encourages developers to release software under the GPL. But it is his GNU toolkit that allows software to be released under any license. He is a pragmatist, and understands that forcing the license issue just slows adoption of the Free OSes. (OK. Maybe not Stallman, but someone out there understands.) We need to allow Photoshop and The Sims to be ported to Linux under the same free toolkit license that they have with MSWindows, or they will not do the ports.
I spend my life entertaining my brain.
KDE was cooked up in the same country that started both World Wars
Failed history in school?
Austrians started both world wars, that's what we always to *muhahaha*
"This would be correct if the cost of the Qt license would actually matter compared to the benefits you get by actually using Qt."
Still missing the point. With LGPL one can write once, release anywere (proprietary or OSS) without revisiting the decision. With QT it's decide from the start to release either OSS, or proprietary, not BOTH (buy a license then release free. Alturistic, but not reality) then write. You may think that's all triviality, but then most people don't understand the BSD/Linux license schism either?
From what I am reading I am still not clear on this.
Are the I.S.O.s for UserLinux going to have KDE on them or not? I understand that gnome will be the default just like fedora. I choose to have both Desktops on my machines. I like choose. I am not so sure about metacity I think that I liked sawfish better but Oh well they both manage the window enviroment.
If the iso's have KDE on them and it is Debian based I will be there if I have to add KDE from a different source then I will stick with fedora.
I do see Bruce talking about how he would like a "cottage industry" to write apps for UserLinux.
But I do not see anywhere where he says that QT could not support this.
"KDE is technically not AS GOOD as GNOME, no it's far supperior over GNOME in many ways. Something usually developers can talk about since they offer the technical skills to do so."
Unfortunately the "my toolkit is superiour to you toolkit" arguments are meaningless when taken out of the context of the goals of the respective teams. Toolkit A can do the hokey-pokey, while toolkit B can not. Therefore toolkit A is superiour. But if the inclusion of the hokey-pokey in toolkit B means that toolkit B will violate it's goals? Then the hokey-pokey isn't a point of superiority. Within the context of the goals, more meaningful arguments can be made.
One of Bruce's customers has asked for KDE out of the many he has. Because he wants their buisness he will support KDE on their system thoug hit is not the GUI of UserLinux. I fail to see how this has anything to do with the KDE plan in the least.
Bruce said before that anyone is fre to use what they want on UserLinux, but it doesn't mean it will be the default or even supported. It seems as if some people are trolling Bruce for his descision to chose a default.
You don't seem to understand the term "cottage industry".
I live in Germany and use GNOME :P
"Good luck basing a desktop distro off of something whose stable version is typically 1 1/2 years behind."
Ummmm, I'm not sure I understand. UL will be based upon Debian. If you already believe that it will fail then why bring up any other points?
"You forget that ul is an enterprise distro - its locked down."
I don't see this written anywhere. In fact, I see specific references that contradict this. Bruce is hoping that a "cottage industry" will spring up that will write apps and do support for UL. That is not possible if it is "locked down" as you claim.
"Try trainiing secretaries how to use apt-get."
This contradicts the sentence preceding it. UL is "locked down" but secretaries will be upgrading it? Don't corporations have "IT staff" that would be doing that?
"Think I'll promote a distro that choosen to ignore me? That's what red hat did, and I won't make that same mistake."
As strange as it may sound, this is not about you.
The "stuck in the Windows world" comment was about your seeming inability to understand that it is possible for vendors to customize software for corporate clients.
And you still seem to be stuck in that mindset. This is based upon your comments about "locked down" and secretaries using apt-get and how debian stable is so out of date and how you won't promote a distro that will ignore(?) you.
That might fly in the Windows world, but not in the Linux world.
Bruce releases UL with a limited set of supported apps. Anyone can use UL like this.
Bruce also has funding to work on contiued development of UL. So updated versions will be available. And anyone can use the updated versions.
Bruce will also sell support to any company that wants different features or packages.
The licensing will be such that other companies can also sell support adding features or packages.
You can even add features or packages if you want to. Just not to the core UL distribution.
The licensing will be such that other ISV's can write and sell apps that run on UL. Those ISV's can sell support for the apps they've written that run on UL.
Because the development is Open, those other companies and ISV's that are providing support will be able to stay current with UL.
Now, the problem I see is that you and so many others are under the impression that if someone isn't doing the work for you and for free, that they're somehow limiting your choices.
That isn't the case.
Ok, it's racist pigs like YOU that started both world wars, not Germans. Oh, and Hitler wasn't a German. Just an FYI. Honestly, the only group I'm predujiced towards are bigots like you. Does it really matter WHERE something was made? I'm a patriot, I love this country. Because I love this country, I pay attention to it's History... and anyone know that this country was FOUNDED by people from other countries. KDE is a good desktop manager, I like it! Gnome is good too... as soon as I get a distro with the latest gnome, I'm gunna try that out. However, KDE let me customize to my patriotic heart's content... with all the anti-anti racial slogans I want... (Like: "Hug a Jew... kill a KKK member.") So, if you think I'm unpatriotic, call the Dept. of Homeland security, and report me as a terrorist... *mutters curses under his breath*
I really can't believe people like you still exist.... *sigh*
--Mac "Nine point eight meters per second squared: The Best Damn Windows Accelerator, Ever."
openoffice is neither assimilated by gnome or part of it. there still is
gnome office consisting of gnumeric, abiword and co...
if openoffice gets installed instead that's ok. it integrates into gnome, where's the problem? (besides some ui inconsistencies which are to be corrected)
Gnome was cooked up in a country that was founded on slavery and succesfully waged of war of genocide on native american tribes across north america.
American ideals... bah
* He told Debian to fuck off because he was starting a Red Hat derived desktop oriented distro
* Then he abused the rights given to him by Debian to erase those emails from the archives
* Then he came back
* Then he forked Debian again with Userlinux
* And so on.
As a software developer, you are better with Gnome or Microsoft than with QT. If all you release is GPL, then it does not matter. If all you ever want to use is GPL, then it does not matter. But if you want to see Adobe Photoshop on Linux, expect your stupid QT license issues to matter, because Photoshop will not be sold with QT.
Other people have pointed out that you may be quite wrong in this assertion, but I'll collect the posts together in one post.
1. Qt is in many ways easier to develop for than GTK+.
2. Adobe is already designing software with Qt. It's likely that any version of Adobe Photoshop for Linux will be Qt.
3. $1500 per year per developer is going to be less than 4% of the amount you're going to pay your employees. If (and I stress the 'if') Qt shaves off more than 4% off the total time of development, compared to how long it would have using GTK+, then Qt works out as a good buy.
4. If you want to develop Microsoft software you need to pay a one-off charge for a Windows license. Only GNOME is 100% free to develop for.
That's not to say that GTK+ doesn't have benefits of it's own. If I were developing a proprietry Linux application, I'd be tempted to look at GTK+, or at least wxWindows, which uses GTK+, if I recall. But the pricing for Qt isn't as big a hurdle as you make out. Any reasonably large company may find Qt cheaper, overall. I'd guess that Adobe, at least, considers it the best choice.
Well, I think its badmouthing Jackson.
At least he sticks to being a Democrat.
Seems like it's time to have the title changed, or a note from the editors indicating that Perens LLC != UnitedLinux.
"The Devil does not know a lot because He's the Devil, He knows a lot because he's old." -- unknown
...at the cost. Now take the same argument about quality. Qt is being developed by *both* the OSS community *and* the paid developers at Trolltech. Gnome is developed by the OSS community alone. So if I stare just as blindly at quality as you do at cost, I could say "As a software developer, you are better off with QT (both) than with Gnome (community only) or Microsoft (paid devs only). If all you release is GPL, then Qt is better. If all you ever want to use is GPL, then Qt is better. Because if Adobe Photoshop ever came on Linux, its licence fees would help the development of the GPL'd Qt"
That's why the OSS community should rally around Qt. As for commercial apps, they will come when the profits outweigh the cost of porting. If that's cost of developer time or cost of developer time + Qt licence, I claim that the difference would be small for a large software project like Photoshop. Dedicate a small "porting team" working hard and exclusively on that port, and so being the only ones to need licences, it'll be next to nothing compared to other costs.
If you had wanted to take a credible example, take a smaller software package, with a developer that can't work on that alone. One who'd spend a fraction of his time doing Qt work, and still had to pay a full licence. But assume that trolltech is rational - they want to make as much money as possible. A non-customer gives no profit, so simply supply and demand would settle it. Qt pricing is what it is because that's what the market is willing to pay. If Gnome was just as good, that value would be $0. Obviously it isn't.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Well, maybe you have a point.
Trying to show the ridiculous things some people seem to hide deep down in their abyss, are you?
Are you kidding? He makes a living being the Jesse Jackson of the open source movement.
Count on Bruce Perens to promptly get in front of every open source parade that's already left without him.
ROFLMAO!
Where's my mod points when I need 'em?
"It doen't nessecarily have to fail, but corel already tried the same thing, with xandros continuing. History tends to repeat itself. I simply stated that having debian as a base is an old base, which you choose not to address."
You are wrong about UL using an old base. Currently, it is using Debian Unstable. As I stated, Bruce has funding to continue development of UL. There is no reason (other than your claims) for Debian not to have current packages.
"Desktop users like the latest, and debian isn't that."
Yet corporations don't deploy the latest software. It seems that you're switching positions. A secretary will use whatever is put on her machine by the IT staff.
"I've worked at eds, qwest and ibm to see first hand what locked down means. And an enterprise distro is targeted at exactly at those types of places. They don't want users making updates, which is my point about how having debian as a base wouldn't typically mean just apt-get in kde."
But they you talk about a secretary running apt-get. Again, you keep switching your position.
Now, for the IT department, installing KDE on 1,000 desktops WILL be as easy as apt-get.
"Third party apps take years, and ul is alienating half. The odds are long."
Whatever.
"If you want a distro without users, of course not. Its developers and consultants who influence purchase orders. And if you accept that you don't want the help of people reading slashdot - the only ones who have even heard of ul - god bless."
I've already explained who is the target market for this and how Bruce is trying to foster the growth of a "cottege industry" to support it.
If that doesn't match you, then that doesn't match you.
Now you seem to believe that you speak for everyone. That is not the case. As was pointed out in the article, Bruce already has a customer willing to pay for enhancements.
You do not speak for everyone. Sorry to be the one to break that to you.
"You're ideas are only good if you can convince other people about their merit, otherwise its engineering masturbation."
And only time will tell whether other people buy into it. It's off to a start. Bruce has one customer already willing to pay.
"From what I seen, corporate clients want it to work out of the box, exactly the same for thousands of users."
From what I've seen, corporations WIPE the hard disks of the workstations they get and then INSTALL their own image. UL will fit perfectly with that practice.
"And until ul gets oracle and websphere to run on it supported, which requires users, that's a lot of customization indeed."
Now you've gone from secretaries and their workstations to SERVERS. I've been in a few Oracle deployments. They all required massive customization. The customization costs always cost more than the software licenses.
So, you're saying that UL won't work until it can run out of the box without customization
-but-
UL won't work until it can run Oracle with a lot of customization.
"That's harder still with pissed off kde users - of which half are in the meeting selling the next distro."
That won't be a problem. If they're that annoyed that their favourite desktop is not shipped, then Oracle will end up running on a Sun and WebSphere will end up on an AIX box.
"That's pretty far off. The freedom is there to design whatever you want, but that doen't mean I have to use it."
No, you don't have to use it. But whether you do or do not, you are not everyone else.
"Which is fine for ul too, if they prefer to only be a niche player. Anything else requires a broad appeal, and instead ul chooses to divide rather than unite."
Here's a newsflash for you. Microsoft own 95%+ of the desktop. Yet Microsoft doesn't give you much choice in the desktop. And that doesn't seem to be hurting their sales any.
Lets see, I could do GUI programming in the C language, which is barely more than a glorified assembler, or I could pound iron nails through my dick. I can't decide.
QT will always be better than GTK because C++ > C for any kind of GUI programming.
Thanks for the toolkit comparison. I hoped someone who used both recently would post a comparison. Of course, few people bother to use more than one API at a time if they can help it.
I was surprised by some of the responses. I defined what I knew about the licensing issues. I learned some of it was wrong. I also stated a preference for KDE. I have been using Gnome on RedHat for years, but I am stuck with MSWindows for my work. I finally tried KDE a few months ago, and realized I prefer it. That said, I really do not care which one wins. I just want Corporate America to decide soon so I know what I should study.
[Off-topic: Does anybody know how to make ANY version of Desktop Linux easy for editing text files? I usually just need to change some setting. I keep trying different programs, and they drive me crazy. After 10 minutes, I give up, open a terminal, and use vi.]
---
My father has a very large group of friends. I converted him to Mozilla a few years ago, and he converted more than a dozen people. I get calls that a friend of a friend of a friend of his likes it, but wonders how to do something. So Mozilla is spreading.
I set up his new PC to triple-boot Win98SE, RedHat9, and Slackware9. While he will use MSWindows as his main OS, he will eventually check out this "other stuff" just because it is there. I wanted him to have choices, so included RedHat because it is natively Gnome, and Slackware because it is natively KDE.
I have configured every option to make both distros feel as much like MSWindows as I could. The big one is the Shade vs Maximize for double-clicking the TitleBar. I used Shades a decade ago, but then MSWindows changed the rules, and I got the habit of expecting it to maximize. I know my father will expect that, since I taught it to him and I have watched him do it without thinking about it.
Please do not start a distro comparison. Those were the distros I had recent versions nearby when I was installing. My copy of Mandrake was old. My latest SuSE is a live CD. He will have a copy of that too, and will probably be burning copies to give to all his friends to try. (He likes to share.) He will probably use MSWindows to make the copies. It is worthwhile to me even if they only boot to Linux to play the games. The important part is to get people comfortable with any Desktop Linux, and this is one step in that direction.
I spend my life entertaining my brain.
This is funny!
My Blog
Basically, I think clients ought to talk to the display server on a higher level, like "make a window with a button and a textbox." Translation of that to "draw a line here" would happen in the display server.
Right now, a programmer chooses which toolkit his code will work with. This way, by choosing a plugin, or even a different display server (which conforms to some standard), the user would choose which toolkit, and it would be system-wide (except for apps running through the X wrapper). The programmer would be able to choose which library he uses to communicate with the server - C, C++, wxWindows, or even just pretending it's an X server.
Giving GTK and QT the ability to use the same themes looks good, but makes the bloat worse, not better. That would cause even more code repetition.
I agree about the QT licensing. When I wrote the first post, I was under the impression there was a charge for the QT runtime library. That has been corrected.
---
About GPL vs LGPL libraries:
Both require changes to the library to be released as source if you distribute the changed binaries. If you use a GPL library, the application must also be GPL'd. If you use the LGPL, then the application can be proprietary. Both would encourage the library to be improved, but the LGPL does not require the new app to be Free.
Is it good to force the apps to be GPL because everybody will run out and slap the GPL on their software? Is it bad because companies will not use the library, so they waste effort reproducing it or money buying a different library? Neither improves the GPL'd library.
Long term (about a century?), all software will probably be GPL'd. The LGPL allows proprietary companies to use and improve the Free libraries. That allows Free Software to benefit from proprietary software companies while they still exist. The migration will take quite some time, and this allows it to be gradual rather than forcing a complete cutover.
---
The QPL seems to have identical terms to the GPL. What am I missing? Why didn't they just use the GPL? What happens if you write GPL software using QT? Do you need to include both licenses?
I spend my life entertaining my brain.
On a different tac, I think I had seen almost the same post a long time ago on a different article.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Funniest post I have ever read!
I wouldn't care if KDE gassed jews, it would be much less of a crime against humanity than using GTK+ and Gnome.
Oracle certifies particular versions of their database to particular versions of redhat enterprise. For example 9i on ent 2.1 and 10g on ent 3. There are well documented hacks (like loading multiple GLIBCs) that allow you to run Oracle on other versions or use the wrong Oracle; however doing so makes it so that neither Oracle nor RedHat supports the product.
The reason to use UserLinux and not Debian is to get support. Generally it takes deliberate action to cause compatability so not preventing working will mean that to make it work requires library modes. Once you "apt-get install kde" you no longer run a supported product similar to the Oracle case.
Yes.
Nice if this were true. Actually Adobe has purchased rights to dozens of commercial QT licenses and has developed an entire QT app. They love the toolkit and consider it far better than GTK. $3K per developer didn't cause them to blink, its far less than other in house tools which run $20k per developer.
PACKAGE NAME: gtk+-1.2.10-i386-3 COMPRESSED PACKAGE SIZE: 1534 K UNCOMPRESSED PACKAGE SIZE: 4420 K PACKAGE NAME: gtk+2-2.2.2-i486-1 COMPRESSED PACKAGE SIZE: 4008 K UNCOMPRESSED PACKAGE SIZE: 16640 K I think I can spare it.
If you say that QT is bad for commercial developers of software because you can't close source your work without paying money, then it stands to reason that the GPL is even worse for commercial developers because you can't close source it at all.
In fact isn't Bruce Perens saying what people like MS say? Software companies will not develop work if they cannot close-source it. Open source is anti-commercial.
How can Bruce Perens on one hand say that GPL and open-source is good for commerce and business and on the other hand say that not being able to close-source your work for free will hinder and destroy software companies esp. small ones? I'm surprised MS hasn't picked up on this contradiction yet to attack Linux.
"Even one of the most ardent advocates of Open source Mr Bruce Perens says that software developers need to be able to close-source their work otherwise they won't develop software. Even Mr Perens believes that the GPL is harmful to the software industry."
I'm a KDE user, but apart from a couple of small details that are specific to my use, could just as easily be a Gnome user. My points are: 1) Gnome provides competition that spurs KDE onto greatness, and KDE provides competition that spurs Gnome onto greatness in equal measure. This friendly (usually) competition has pushed both to improve greatly over time, and to some extent to converge in terms of the end user experience. If either one had not exisited, the remaining one would be far worse and far less refined than it already is. That this competition has exisited now means that we have two desktop environments, both of which are far superior to the most commonly used proprietary desktop (MS-windows). 2) It is a costly business for a distributor to provide full official support for a collection of software as large as a desktop environment. It therefore makes sense to pick one and stick with that; however this does NOT mean that the other will not run, just that it won't receive the same level of support. However, as long as there are other distributions that _do_ officially support the other desktop environment, it should still work well without a huge requirement for support. The fact that KDE is more popular among the 'big' distro providers means that KDE should work well with UserLinux whether or not it's officially supported. 3) Likewise, if UserLinux supports Gnome officially, it should be less of a burden for KDE-centric distros to use Gnome. Officially supported or not, as long as there are some distros which concentrate on KDE and others on Gnome, both should improve greatly, work well without official support and provide the end users with choice between two excellent desktops. 4) I don't see official support for KDE being such a big deal here, although obviously it will be a popular request due to its popularity and familiarity elsewhere. 5) We can therefore all live happily ever after.
43 - For those who require slightly more than the answer to life, the universe and everything.
Why should the desktop environment get special treatment? If you 'KDE in UserLinux' advocates believe there should be a choice for desktop, then shouldn't you also be advocating choice of MTA? Choice of web browser? Choice of database? Choice of mail client? What about choice of kernel (Darwin?) In other words, shouldn't you be telling Perens that you think UserLinux should support Debian unstable in its entirety, since it offers the most choice? Maybe it should be called UserDebian, so everyone can choose from NetBSD, Linux, Darwin, etc.?
Forget about your preference of desktop for a minute. Now, is it fair to tell Perens that UserLinux should support two or three of everything? Is it fair to complain about Perens' choice to make UserLinux a system that is simplified? No, of course it isn't. So quit whining and just use something else.