Deep Inside the K Desktop Environment

Lemmingue writes "Ars Technica published a very good article about the KDE architecture. It's a essential read for anyone wondering how Konqueror can open documents in the same window or just understand the license issues regarding the Qt use. The article describes most of the technologies behind the KDE (Qt, KParts) and how the project is organized. The article is full of links, screenshots and diagrams."

Comments

How old is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus, like 6 months old.

Re:How old is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

not to mention the fact that it's a dupe.

Re:How old is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd think the Feb 04 bit at the beginning of the article would have tipped them off...

Re:How old is this?

[esukafurone]

Though I have an rss feed in Trillian that I check at least once every half hour, there's always lots of slashdot posts I miss. Being from Europe, most interesting stuff get posted when I'm asleep, I guess. A dupe never hurt anyone...

Er?

[aleonard]

And it makes to to slashdot only four months late! Unless Ars made a stealth update I'm not aware of?

Re:Er?

[Anonymous Coward]

Another thing:

Isn't it the "KDE Desktop Environment"?

Re:Er?

[jayminer]

It's a dupe. Visit this article on Slashdot.

license issues?

[Anonymous Coward]

or just understand the license issues regarding the Qt use

Are there some issues with the GPL that we haven't already heard about?

Re:license issues?

[fiftyvolts]

The freeversion of Qt is under two licenses: the GPL and the QPL. While most people have a rough idea about the GPL most people don't know about the QPL, Like you for example.

Re:license issues?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, if you use the GPL for a critical library (as KDE did with Qt), any commercial software developer for your desktop has to be extremely careful or they can be stung for $3000 for every single developer working on the app, plus annual renewal fees JUST FOR THE RIGHT TO USE THE LIBRARY.

If they're doing closed source non-GPLed development then they should have to pay this. I don't see why this is a problem.

You can't use GPLed libraries in proprietary software without some other licensing arrangement. Didn't we know this already?

This is not some strike against Qt, it's just more FUD (probably from a GNOME zealot).

Sure, the GNOME libraries are LGPL. They still suck donkey balls compared with KDE's development platform.

Re:license issues?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your trollpost doesn't bring any facts to the table. So, dear troll. What would happen if MS buys trolltech? Should we support them too?

Re:license issues?

[Anonymous Coward]

What would happen if MS buys trolltech?

Should Troll Tech ever discontinue the Qt Free Edition for any reason including, but not limited to, a buy-out of Troll Tech, a merger or bankruptcy, the latest version of the Qt Free Edition will be released under the BSD license.

Re:license issues?

[0x0d0a]

If they're doing closed source non-GPLed development

Whoah, careful on combining things. There's a lot of open source software out there that *isn't* GPL-compatible, believe it or not.

There are also other issues some folks (including me) have with Qt's licensing situation.

You can't use GPLed libraries in proprietary software without some other licensing arrangement. Didn't we know this already?

Consider the fact that none of the other fundamental libraries for a typical Linux system (libc, libm, libpthread, libpam, libutil, libdl, libcrypt, libncurses, libz, libX11, libXt, libXext, libSM, libICE, libGL) are GPLed. This was not by accident. It was to ensure that Linux is a free-as-in-beer development environment for *all* users.

This is not some strike against Qt, it's just more FUD (probably from a GNOME zealot).

I think I'm reasonably unbiased -- I don't even use the GNOME desktop environment, though I do prefer to use GTK-based applications.

Sure, the GNOME libraries are LGPL. They still suck donkey balls compared with KDE's development platform.

You have a very liberal interpretation of "sucking donkey balls". It's subjective of course -- I have my own peeves with Qt, like use of a weird preprocessor and disregard for the STL, and could with about as much justification (well, more, since I listed two issues) say the same thing about Qt.

Re:license issues?

[0x0d0a]

"Discontinue" is a lovely loophole for TrollTech. Any company would take that kind of control over, say Win32 in a *moment*. Microsoft doesn't even have that kind of power.

Re:license issues?

[Just Some Guy]

pine

No, I don't use it. It's not Open Source.

povray

Yes, I would use it. They're working on making it Open Source.

XFree86

Yes, I use it. All version prior to xfree86.org's idiotic license change, and all new versions from X.org are Open Source.

qmail

No, I don't use it. It's not Open Source.

xv

No, I don't use it. It's not Open Source.

Did you have any other questions? You seem to have a pretty tenuous grasp on what constitutes an Open Source license. I strongly suggest you read the definition before you make wild and incorrect claims about what it means.

Re:license issues?

[0x0d0a]

Did you have any other questions? You seem to have a pretty tenuous grasp on what constitutes an Open Source license. I strongly suggest you read the definition before you make wild and incorrect claims about what it means.

Hmm...you're right. I always thought that the OSI defined "Open Source" and that "open source" predated them and referred to source code public availability, but it appears that I was wrong.

Well, there does not appear to be a concise name for the class of software that I am discussing -- source free-as-in-beer-available and free-as-in-beer usable but not OSI-compliant. I do consider that these packages are a not insignificant chunk of the world, though, and they are certainly used and more-poorly-served by Qt's license scheme than the license schemes that the FSF uses or Linus uses.

FWIW, povray theoretically is being completely rewritten for v4 to be open source, according to discussion I've read, but I've seen little indication of this actually happening -- it's a pretty large task.

Re:license issues?

[Just Some Guy]

Well, there does not appear to be a concise name for the class of software that I am discussing -- source free-as-in-beer-available and free-as-in-beer usable but not OSI-compliant.

"Propietary", and I'm not trying to be flippant. I think that those apps are increasingly irrelevant in daily usage. I mean, why maintain your own local patch branch of a certain application when there's almost certain to be an Open Source or Free equivalent.

more-poorly-served by Qt's license scheme than the license schemes that the FSF uses or Linus uses.

What you're saying is true, but I just can't feel too sympathetic toward those apps. They would be wanting to use millions of man-hours of work without contributing back to the pool, and I don't think that's a reasonable position to adopt. It would've been spiffy if Trolltech had used the LGPL or BSD license, but I don't begrudge them their decision.

Povray's kind of a disappointment. I completely understand why they can't release it under an open license, and I certainly don't hold those reasons against them, but it's sad that the (best? only?) source-available raytracer still has so many strings attached. Here's to hoping that they can get it all resolved.

Re:license issues?

[0x0d0a]

"Propietary", and I'm not trying to be flippant.

Well, yes, but proprietary is a very large umbrella term -- it can refer to everything from the Windows source code to the patents Apple holds on TrueType kerning. I meant a way of distinguishing between software that is free-as-in-beer to use and distribute, where source can be downloaded and learned from with no NDAs or registrations or anything being signed and the rest of the body of what we generally would call "non-Free", "non-OSI-compliant" software.

They would be wanting to use millions of man-hours of work without contributing back to the pool, and I don't think that's a reasonable position to adopt.

It is certainly less efficient, but not all software of this class is like the NPL, where the original author of the work gets special rights to improvements. Povray or xmame, for instance, have non-OSI-compliant licenses, but do not grant special rights to anyone. I guess that I can agree that it might be rather nice if everyone had intercompatible licenses, but I don't agree that the GPL is the "ultimate" license or that it's a good idea to try to force all GUI desktop software for the premier hobbyist OS to fall under a particular license (or pay a penalty fee for not doing so). I'm just not comfortable with it.

Povray's kind of a disappointment. I completely understand why they can't release it under an open license, and I certainly don't hold those reasons against them, but it's sad that the (best? only?) source-available raytracer still has so many strings attached. Here's to hoping that they can get it all resolved.

There are a number of GPL-compatible raytracers. It's not really all that hard to write a raytracer -- I did one for a class project once. YafRay is GPLed, CoolRay is GPLed, and Blender has an integrated raytracer (as well as other renderers).

Re:license issues?

[Anonymous Coward]

If they're doing closed source non-GPLed development then they should have to pay this. I don't see why this is a problem.

Sweet, thanks for offering to buy me a $3000 cross-platform developer license.

The licensing issue is the one reason why I'm avoiding Qt. I dump Microsoft because they charge me lots of money for things I don't want.. and Trolltech turns around and tries to do the same thing. Qt/KDE offers me less choice and pads the pockets of Trolltech if I wish to go closed source. Saying that GNOME sucks donkey balls does not change a thing, not is it an effective argument.

It's about control. I currently control my code on all platforms that I choose to release on. I am not about to change the licence that I use because some whiny snot-nosed hippie on Slashdot told me to.

Until KDE allows LGPL'd use of their libraries - free use through dynamic linking, just like every other major GUI system including Windows, Os X and Gnome - KDE will not have the support of the commercial software industry. Unless Gnome wins the desktop war, the Linux desktop will remain a fragmented mess that nobody can sell commercial applications for.

Thank you, Gnome developers, for predicting the licensing issues and creating your competing windowing system that allows developers freedom to create applications on their own terms.

Re:license issues?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Discontinue" is a lovely loophole for TrollTech.

In what way? Not only was your "supporting" link riddled with mistakes and logical errors, it didn't talk about the Free Qt Foundation at all.

Re:license issues?

[be-fan]

GPL is a partial solution? Better tell that to the kernel folks!

Re:license issues?

[0x0d0a]

The kernel isn't a library, though. I think that the closest problem that could come up would be non-GPL compatible modules using kernel functionality. Whether or not he is legally correct, Linus has stated that he doesn't consider GPL-incompatible modules to be infringing.

Use of a GPL library, like Qt, entails that people not produce GPL-incompatible software.

Re:license issues?

[farley13]

not to nitpick but there are plenty of Large Commercial Applications for linux. Pretty expensive at that. Alias Maya, and Pixar's Renderman renderer come to mind. Small comercial apps - that's a different story.

pr0n reference?

[SunPin]

What's with the headline? "Deep Inside the K Desktop Environment" isn't nearly as intriguing as "Deep Inside [pr0n_star]"...

Re:pr0n reference?

[jb.hl.com]

What's with the headline? "Deep Inside the K Desktop Environment" isn't nearly as intriguing as "Deep Inside [pr0n_star]"...

Well, if you pronounce "KDE" to sound like "Katie"...

Re:pr0n reference?

[SunPin]

That's the next quality title from Vivid Entertainment... it will put Linux on the map, amigos.

KitchenSync!?!

[vijaya_chandra]

An integrated syncing component is planned using the KitchenSync syncing framework.

Is that a dig at someone?!?!

Re:Gmail invite right here!

[strictnein]

and now that link shows us all the email account that was made...

Rockin! Maybe in a few months...

[Hannibal_Ars]

...you guys will link up my new Prescott article that went live this morning!

(Looking back at this post with the preview function, I'm thinking, "is this a troll, flamebait, informative, funny, all four, or none of the above?" I post, you decide.)

Re:Rockin! Maybe in a few months...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, we get Hannibal duping Eric's comment on Hemos' dupe of Michael! Slow news day?

Re:Rockin! Maybe in a few months...

[DarkHelmet]

Hannibal,

I'm rather curious, how well does ArsTechnica handle a Slashdot story? I'm asking this, since most people view getting a story on slashdot as a bad thing server wise.

Thanks.

Re:Rockin! Maybe in a few months...

[Hannibal_Ars]

Believe it or not, our article web pages are statically served. It may be low-tech, but it's cheap, scalable (for our volume of output), and the server can take a licking and keep on ticking. So the server doesn't even bat an eye at the Slashdot crowd. Now when a major Mac article comes out and the entire online Mac community is trying to load the page at the same time... well, that's the one time when we're maybe thankful for Apple's small market share :0)

The news on the front page, on the other hand, is served dynamically by a CMS.

Re:Rockin! Maybe in a few months...

[CounterZer0]

You use too many words for most /.ers, and not enough pictures! Great article, btw :)

Re:Rockin! Maybe in a few months...

[0x0d0a]

You know, I really like seeing Ars-Slashdot ties. I don't see the two as competing much -- Ars has lots of good, original content, whereas Slashdot just links to content, but Slashcode is (IMHO) a more pleasant-to-use forum engine. They complement each other very nicely.

Re:Rockin! Maybe in a few months...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to be pedantic or anything, but if you look at the timestamps, Hannibal's post came in ~4 minutes before Eric's.

Re:Rockin! Maybe in a few months...

[hayden]

So the server doesn't even bat an eye at the Slashdot crowd.

That there be a challenge boys and girls (well, girl anyway).

wxwidgets

[Anonymous Coward]

Until Trolltech goes full open source
(and plys its way as a support company),
try using WxWidgets : wxwidgets.org.

Not as cute at Qt, but portable to multiple systems and your system won't be held hostage to a wacky license.

Re:wxwidgets

[mattyrobinson69]

yep - you wouldn't want any software with a wacky license on your computer, would you.

i take it you use the old LGPL'd kernel, and BSD apps for the rest of your system?

mod me down but im right - whats wrong with these people???

Re:wxwidgets

[0x0d0a]

You are using hyperbole -- the Qt licensing problems are real, serious, not likely to go away, and brushed off by the Ars Technica article. I've mentioned a few of the problems that I have with Qt further down. It is wildly different from using a GPLed kernel (the GPL largely does not enforce issues between the kernel and userspace apps, and Linus has taken an interpretation that the GPL is not forced upon kernel modules). BSD software does not force software using it to take a particular license, and the library at issue is not one of the most fundamental to Linux's future use.

Re:wxwidgets

[Brandybuck]

the GPL largely does not enforce issues between the kernel and userspace apps, and Linus has taken an interpretation that the GPL is not forced upon kernel modules

What justifies this kernel/userspace boundary exception? Or the slightly more common process boundary exception? This isn't specified in copyright law. It isn't specified in the GPL. It's an arbitrary distinction. In fact it is so arbitrary that Linus included an explicit exception to the GPL because a great number of developers believed otherwise. Without it Linux may have never achieved commercial acceptability.

Re:wxwidgets

[mattyrobinson69]

i personally dont agree with BSD style licenses in they encourage companies like Microsoft (TCP stack) to use their code.

What's the difference between the LGPL and the BSD license?

Re:wxwidgets

[0x0d0a]

LGPL code cannot be closed a la BSD, but it doesn't restrict people's choice of license in writing an application that uses it.

You couldn't take an LGPLed TCP stake, but you could use an LGPLed libjpeg.

Dependencies

[ultrabot]

From TFA:

In addition to DCOP, the upcoming KDE 4 is expected to also support D-BUS, which was designed using DCOP as a model but with the added advantage of having no dependencies,

Thank $deity! KDE would in general benefit from ridding the application programmer from dependencies to GPL'd stuff. KDE "needs" (to the extent any piece of software needs anything) to be able to render Gtk-applications with native LAF, so that the application developers can choose their license freely. I'm not aware if the dependency problem with DCOP relates to Qt, however. Without GPL (and QPL), KDE could have been embraced as the standard Linux desktop environment ages ago. So far it only has the most users, but that's not enough if it's not "strategically viable" (if you work for Trolltech/KDE: please spare the lecture about corps affording $1500/dev/year, we've all seen it).

KDE could really collect the jackpot by allowing development of native KDE apps via Gtk/other LGPL'd lib. I assume QtGtk isn't up to the task yet?

DCOP, BTW, is a very sweet and underadvertised technology. We need DCOP-like scriptability for all the applications. It has a very transparent feel, just like a good Unix methodology should.

Re:Dependencies

[Anonymous Coward]

most people willing to give you that lecture aren't distinguished by working for Trolltech/KDE - they just now how to see through FUD.

Re:Dependencies

[codemachine]

I imagine it'll soon be possible to build native KDE applications using GTK. Things like QtGtk theme engine and the library that merges the event loops, when stable, will allow a very nearly native KDE application written in GTK. See here for more details.

The problem from a licensing perspective is that even if the theme and event loop code are LGPL, they probably link back to other KDE libraries which then link back to QT. Even though the integration libraries and much of KDE itself are LGPL, you wouldn't be saved from the link back to QT by writing KDE applications in GTK. Though I do feel it is a real stretch to say a GTK application is a "derivative" of QT. The vaugeness of the GPL in defining derivative work make this a difficult issue.

At least that is how I understand the current situation. One possible way around this might be to have all the integration technology sitting outside KDE, like D-BUS will be doing. QtGtk could be rewritten to be a common component for both desktops to use.

Disclaimer: I haven't looked at the code or the licenses of the integration components. If you developers can offer any corrections or comments, please do so.

Re:Dependencies

[Anonymous Coward]

A QtGtk would not be a derivative work. Unless it contains code from Qt. If so, your code will fall under the GPL, if not under the LGPL.

I for one don't care. We just avoid Qt for all applications we ship and link them statically against GTK.

Re:Dependencies

[jbolden]

Though I do feel it is a real stretch to say a GTK application is a "derivative" of QT. The vaugeness of the GPL in defining derivative work make this a difficult issue.

The GPL doesn't define derivative work, US copyright law does. The FSF has officially recorded opinions on areas of copyright law that are vague and those opinions may or may not have influence on a possible future lawsuit.

In any case if the app requires QT to work its a derivative work if it can run independently it isn't. But KDE is exclusively GPL so any "KDE app" must be GPLed regardless of whether it uses QT or not.

And just to hold off the comparison with Linux: Read the Linux license the very first line gives an explicit exemption for applications (unlike the standard GPL which KDE uses) and thus the situation doesn't apply to the Linux kernel and end user applications.

Re:Dependencies

[rekulator]

Wrong. KDE libs are LGPL, only apps are GPL.

Re:Dependencies

[dido]

Exemption or no exemption, applications running under Linux would not need to be GPLed, as they would be merely using the kernel, and the GPL explicitly allows this in section 0: "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope." You are not copying, distributing, or modifying kernel code when you run a program under Linux, so the GPL's rules don't apply. On the other hand, linking to a library is a totally different proposition, as it generally involves taking part of the library and incorporating its object code into a program. To distribute such a linked program would require distributing the library code as well, and *that* is covered by the GPL. That was the motivation for the LGPL.

Re:Dependencies

[jbolden]

You can't take a Linux binary and run it under x86 Solaris. The reason is there are links whether they be direct or indirect (BSD actually contains a compatibility layer). If A does not operate without B then it is a derivative of B, whether it contains B or not. The GPL would cover distribution of a combined work (that is A+B together). Without B even if A was a derivative copyright law doesn't kick in since there is no copying (which is one of the reasons that SCO has no case in their assertions regarding ownership of derivations). So if the exemption didn't exist, distributing a non GPL compliant application compiled to run under Linux (i.e. a Linux binary) would most likely be a violation. The courts might hold that the Linux compatibility layer in the BSD products was sufficient to not make a Linux binary a derived work but that's what the case would hinge on.

A great example of this was the original issue of KDE + QT when QT was under the free license or the QPL. The real questionable activity was whether or not Debian (or anyone else) could legally distribute the combined work there were fewer arguments whether KDE could or not. Without the combined work distributing KDE wasn't a problem, the only problem was that it didn't run at all.

Re:Dependencies

[jbolden]

Good point. Its still a little complicated however.

Actually no. KDE libs as distributed from KDE are LGPL. KDE as distributed by any distribution is all GPL. The reason is that:

KDE + QT is only a distributable combination if the QT is under the GPL.
The libs are derived works of QT and have a GPL compatible license (the LGPL) so when distributed they are under the GPL.

Copyright law covers the act of copying. Believe it or not, where you get your copy from does influence the licensing. So if I have a KDE app I still would need to be GPL compliant to be distributed as part of a Linux distribution. I guess if everyone got it directly from me I could have a more restrictive license.

Re:Dependencies

[dido]

You can't take a Linux binary and run it under x86 Solaris. The reason is there are links whether they be direct or indirect (BSD actually contains a compatibility layer). If A does not operate without B then it is a derivative of B, whether it contains B or not.

I don't think any present theory of derivative works under copyright law would support you in this. Present case law concerning derivative works seems to deal solely with incorporating significant portions of one work within another, and your theory of non-operation as derivative work is stretching things a LOT. Distributing A+B by definition be just "mere aggregation" which is specifically permitted by the GPL.

Re:Dependencies

[jbolden]

Actually no. Incorporation is not the only way copyright works. Otherwise the following would be legal:

a) Compiling source to create a binary and considering that a new work (no incorporation at all)

b) Translating a work

c) Taking a piece of music and playing it on your own equipment (no incorporation).

Derivation was created specifically to broad the notion of "copying" beyond the most obvious types of copying. As for my specific case this is what prevents all sorts of "work arounds" for copying. Someone could argue that .mp3 require an mp3 player and thus are not derived from the original CD recording but rather are an entirely new work. The law however believes that since the .mp3 is worthless without the mp3 player and the audio card and the speakers the mp3 should be considered as it plays which makes it a derived work.

Re:Dependencies

[dido]

Actually no. Incorporation is not the only way copyright works. Otherwise the following would be legal:

a) Compiling source to create a binary and considering that a new work (no incorporation at all)

GCC has no exceptions for this, and yes, the FSF doesn't even try to assert copyright for anything compiled with GCC, and try to say that if you compile anything with GCC you are subject to the GPL. Copyright law only gives the copyright holder the exclusive rights to copy, modify, and distribute, and using a compiler to create another program does none of these things, so it requires no license. If some compiler vendor wanted this kind of power they would need to enter into a contract with their customers; a copyright license by itself cannot do this, and well, some of them do, I think.

b) Translating a work

This requires the translator to modify the entire copyrighted work, and hence, yes, it requires a license from the copyright holder of the original work. This is forbidden by copyright unless properly licensed. Same goes for ripping a CD track to produce an MP3. It is not because an MP3 player is required to play the track, but because modification of the original copyrighted work was done.

c) Taking a piece of music and playing it on your own equipment (no incorporation).

Who says that this is not legal? This is all perfectly legal. We all do this every day, and do not require special licenses from the RIAA record labels to do so, unless there's something in the CD liner notes that I haven't seen (and yes, I'm one of those people who actually reads everything printed in a CD liner note).

So, by your theory, every program running under Windows is a derivative work of Windows, and thus, every program running under Windows is actually owned by Microsoft and they can assert copyrights to it, and I need a further license from them if I want to make a program that runs on their OS. What a load of hogwash! You must be living in the same universe that Darl McBride is in, as you're making the same kind of twisted misinterpretations of copyright law that SCO is making.

Re:Dependencies

[jbolden]

So, by your theory, every program running under Windows is a derivative work of Windows, and thus, every program running under Windows is actually owned by Microsoft and they can assert copyrights to it, and I need a further license from them if I want to make a program that runs on their OS.

Every program is a derivative of Windows. Microsoft explicitly licenses Windows to allow it to run 3rd party software and hence Microsoft has no claim on arbitrary Windows binaries.

As for the example of compiling

1) Actually yes compilers can claim derivation status (see some of the specialized compilers for examples of this)

2) My point was actually recompiling someone elses source code doesn't make it independent. That was an easy example of where you have no incorporation but an

As for the example of music you are licensed to play it for personal use (but not for example for performance). You are explicitly licensed.

Look I'm tired of an is to is not discussion. Either start citing law or cases or lets end this thread here.

Perhaps you meant to link to this article

[ArsEric]

Yes, we published this several months ago, and have made no recent revisions to it. If you're going to link us up (which we always appreciate!), why not do it to our new article on the Future of Prescott?

Re:Perhaps you meant to link to this article

[vigilology]

Because the article is about KDE, not Prescott.

Re:Perhaps you meant to link to this article

[Anonymous Coward]

I read the KDE article a few months ago so looked at the Prescott article. It was difficult for me to comprehend completely.

So I looked at the primer article 'Understanding Moore's Law' http://arstechnica.com/paedia/m/moore/moore-6.html what a great article. This primer in integrated electronics practice and theory was interesting in itself. But the fact that it made Moore's classic paper understandable made it especially valuable reading.

One errata however the original Moore article archived at www.intel.com/research/silicon/moorespaper.pdf is 404.

I eventually found it by googling like so:
http://www.google.com/search?q=moores%20paper &ie=U TF-8&oe=UTF-8

html version here:
http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:956psm DgW2sJ: qubit.plh.af.mil/RelatedArticles/related/moore65.p df+moores+paper&hl=en

Why does KDE always reinvent the wheel

[thammoud]

Jukebox and music manager -- JuK ??
Multiprotocol instant messaging -- Kopete
PIM and groupware solution -- Kontact
Konqueror ?

Why? Why? Why?

Re:Why does KDE always reinvent the wheel

[ultrabot]

Regarding the subject: probably because someone among the KDE people thinks s/he can do better than the author of the original app. As far as apps like kopete and kontact go, they actually did do better. Konqueror is still primarily a file manager (excellent browser too, but I guess the "standard" browser will be Firefox in the near future), and significantly better than nautilus as far ergonomics and features go. It also preceded nautilus chronologically.

Re:Why does KDE always reinvent the wheel

[yokem_55]

The idea is to have software the integrates and takes advantage of everything the kde environment has to offer. There are two ways of doing this. 1. Pull your hair out trying to cajole existing applications originally created off of an entirely different framework, to take some, limited advantage of what kde has to offer. 2. Start from scratch with an environment that makes fast development very easy and very quick, without massive quantities of hair left in your hands.

Re:Why does KDE always reinvent the wheel

[Anonymous Coward]

they were all written very fast (like under a year from inception to full-inclusion).

so i guess the answer is

"because it was very easy too" (using KDE dev tools)

Re:Why does KDE always reinvent the wheel

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Konquerer is a bad browser but Kopete is great.

Re:Why does KDE always reinvent the wheel

[sirReal.83.]

Well, I don't really like juK... I use amaroK.
Gaim sucks. Kopete's better.
Evolution is slow. Kontact is fast.

All these programs, though, use KDE technologies that made them a *lot* easier to develop and a pleasure to use.
I guess the real question is: Why not?

Re:Why does KDE always reinvent the wheel

[Seli]

Actually Konqueror/KHTML and Kontact are not really reinventing the wheel.

The work on KDE's filemanager and HTML engine dates back to the days when the only usable *cough* browser was Netscape4.x and Mozilla seemed only like a great failure.

Kontact is basically an aggregation of long time existing KDE applications like KMail, KNode, KNotes etc., pre-dating e.g. Evolution.

That said, this question about reinventing the wheel is stupid anyway. First, there are many things about KDE that KDE has had first (like, the first usable Linux GUI ;) ), and second, everybody is reinventing the wheel all the time anyway, so what?

Re:Why does KDE always reinvent the wheel

[Ed_Moyse]

I'm not particularly a KDE fanatic, and frankly Firefox is normally better than konqueror. However I tend to use konqueror when I can just because it integrates so well with everything else. The same is a million times more applicable to kopete and kontact. If you don't think of them as separate programs, but as part of a unified desktop then I think it makes more sense.

Re:Why does KDE always reinvent the wheel

[pherthyl]

Well said, sure Firefox renders some pages more correctly and seems to do better with some plugins, but it still takes way longer to start up. Konqueror now starts in about half a second with preloading enabled, even without its still about 3-5 times faster than firefox on my machine. Also firefox doesn't behave like an integrated part of the desktop. Key bindings are slightly different, menu order isn't the same. It's just annoying.

I really hate Kopete though. Metacontacts are cool but the application just feels really overengineered and has messed up my contact list one too many times. File transfer is also pretty flaky and the process of allowing someone to quickly log in is tedious to say the least (always have to create profile). I'll stick with aMsn and licq.

Re:Why does KDE always reinvent the wheel

[Anonymous Coward]

it's not inventing. it's implementing.

Re:Why does KDE always reinvent the wheel

[Anonymous Coward]

like, the first usable Linux GUI ;)

Good thing that wink is there, cuz otherwise that statement would be pretty funny!

Usability problem # 3452: You a see dialog with "Apply", "Reset", and a close button on the window. You want to change some settings and then make sure they apply now as well as in future sessions. Quiz: what sequence of button presses will accomplish this? Answer: who knows! it's not clear from the interface. Now, you want to apply them for the current session only. Common sense says, they apply as soon as you make the changes to the controls in the dialog box. But do they? No, clicking controls does nothing except update the control, but then that Apply button beckons you.. do you press it? But doesn't that save them forever? That's what it did last time.. in THIS app at least!

Yow! Let's play Press 'n' Guess!

Re:Why does KDE always reinvent the wheel

[Brandybuck]

I'm wondering why CPS (commercial proprietary software) always reinvents the wheel. I walk into a store and I see six shrink-wrapped titles for anti-virus software. I see a dozen shrink-wrapped titles for anti-spyware. And there's at least a handful of shrink-wrapped titles for firewalls.

Why? Why? Why?

Re:Why does KDE always reinvent the wheel

[eviltypeguy]

Evolution may be slow, but it knock's Kontact's socks off figuratively speaking when it comes to functionality and familiarity for those who have lived in an Exchange / Outlook world for a long time. Especially the in-development version.

Re:Why does KDE always reinvent the wheel

[tzanger]

Well I can say from experience that noatun was not stable, ever. It was cool if you could get it to work but I've certainly never seen it stable. JuK has just plain old worked since Day One.

To be honest though, I don't think that Gnome's libraries (gaim, evolution, etc.) are built in such a way as they can be embedded. Practically everything KDE seems to be.

Re:Why does KDE always reinvent the wheel

[mattyrobinson69]

i used to use noatun but 2 bugs pissed me off and made me move to juk (i now couldn't live without its playlist's features)

1) kjofol skins transparency was solid purple and the rest of the window was transparent (QT bug apparently)
2) i was the only person who could recreate this (no idea why), but the volume changed drasticaly between songs.

im glad i moved to juk tho

Re:Why does KDE always reinvent the wheel

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't competition a GOOD thing? Why should EVERYONE running Linux use GAIM, for example? I'm sure that Xine and Mplayer benefit greatly from their healthy rivalry, even though, ironically, both use most of the same libraries and so forth to render movies...

Besides, if a project like Gaim up and dies, we have an alternative - not likely, as someone else would probably just run with Gaim code via GPL allowances, but u get the idea...

Re:Why does KDE always reinvent the wheel

[thornist]

mod parent up - funny or insightful or both

Re:Why does KDE always reinvent the wheel

[AstroDrabb]

I am a long time Gnome user and only recently have been using (and really liking) KDE. While it may seem to be reinventing the wheel, there is not much choie for a KDE developer. They cannot reuse GTK/Gnome stuff, since that would add more dependencies to a KDE desktop. Why would a KDE desktop user want Gnome/GTK dependencies? Just as why would a Gnome/GTK desktop user want QT/KDE dependencies? The two toolkits and desktops are very different and use different languages (C and C++) so the hope of reusing GTK/Gnome and QT/KDE is slim to none. They could reuse ideas, but not code. Just as it would be hard to reuse code between MS Windows and Mac OSX.

Re:Why does KDE always reinvent the wheel

[JamesKPolk]

Before Konqueror, what file manager was there that integrated with KDE?

Kontact was largely contracted by the German government, but before it what was there that integrated with KDE?

If you're suggesting KDE users slum and use any old app that acts its own way, has its own settings, looks its own way, and doesn't even have the same menu structure as the rest of their KDE apps, you miss the entire point of KDE.

KDE was founded to bring consistency and integration to the user. That means writing every app to conform.

This is not meant to be an endorsement of Kontact, Kopete, or JuK, by the way. I'm mostly addressing Konqueror of the four you list.

Re:Why does KDE always reinvent the wheel

[Seli]

Actually I didn't intend to wink, that was supposed to be normal smiley. I think KDE was the first usable Linux GUI, and keeps being the best. YMMV

As for the usability problem, if the dialog has 'apply' button, then common sense says the settings will be applied after you click that button. I don't see any problem with that.

Re:Why does KDE always reinvent the wheel

[Tukla]

I don't know what environment you're using, but in KDE, Apply always makes the changes permanent without closing the dialog. I'm not aware of any changes you can make that only last for the session.

(I've seen apps on Windows that only apply the changes temporarily if you click on "Apply" or "OK". They also have a "Save" button to make the changes permanent. I think that's terribly clunky. And don't get me started on apps that make your changes permanent as soon as you make them, regardless if you click on a button or not.)

Re:Why does KDE always reinvent the wheel

[Anonymous Coward]

So when KDE imitates Windows, it's bad, but when Gnome imitates Windows, it's more functional. I wish the Gnome boosters would stop being such hypocrites.

Re:Why does KDE always reinvent the wheel

[Miamicanes]

Well, let's see... at the time KDE 3 came out, Mozilla wasn't quite (*cough*) ready for prime time yet, Netscape 4 sucked, and Internet Explorer for Linux (with DirectX window manager and Explorer Desktop for $89.95) didn't exist (admit it... there are a LOT of Linux users who would have used IE4Lin had it actually existed 2 years ago... though I suspect few of the copies would have actually been *bought*).

IMHO, at the time, Konqueror was the ONLY civilized browser for Linux. It wasn't perfect, but it was a hell of a lot better than the alternatives.

Of course, Moz is now the best, but Konqueror was definitely a welcome gift when it arrived :-)

Can't belive how far they've come!

[filesiteguy]

As a regular Windoze user, I love looking into KDE from time to time. I first tried it out in '99 on my Pentium 133 laptop and was somewhat happy. (It was certianly better than the X-win system on our Sparc 5 workstations.)

I now have Mandrake 10 and am very pleased with the progress, integration, and ease of use. Since I use NT 5 here at work, I am almost excited to get home and work on my system running KDE.

Good job, Mattias!

See, being from Tübingen can be Kool!!!

Re:Can't belive how far they've come!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually KDE still uses the X-win system.

Re:Can't belive how far they've come!

[benzapp]

Since I use NT 5 here at work

Too hip to use "Windows 2000" eh?

Re:Can't belive how far they've come!

[Bill Kendrick]

Since I use NT 5 here at work, I am almost excited to get home and work on my system running KDE.

I've been forced into the Windows world for my new job (cellphone app development), and I agree. When I get to sit back down on my stable, fast, well-intergated KDE desktop, I feel like I'm visiting a good friend I hadn't seen in a while.

With Windows XP, everything's a fucking battle. Uphill, even. *sigh*

Re:Can't belive how far they've come!

[RedBear]

See, being from Tübingen can be Kool!!!

[Surfer Voice]: Whoa. Dude, how can being from Tübingen NOT be Kool?

Re:What does KDE stand for?

[JabberWokky]

Yep. There was discussion and the 'Kool' part was dropped prior to version 1.0. That was a long time ago. Have you been putting the cover sheets on the TPS reports? If not, I'll get you a copy of both memos and drop them off on your desk later, m'kay? That's greeeat.

--
Evan

Not only that, it's a dupe.

[bonch]

Slashdot posted it when it came out.

I'm convinced--the editors absolutely do not read Slashdot. The last straw was last week when Michael duped a story from three hours earlier that was still on the front page.

Re:Not only that, it's a dupe.

[Anonymous Coward]

The last straw was last week when...
is it really the last straw when we keep coming back for more?

What's the next article?

[Anonymous Coward]

Gnomes Gone Wild?

Re:What's the next article?

[xa0s]

Private Life of Linus Torvalds...

on second thought, no

Re:What does KDE stand for?

[Scaba]

Umm, they dropped the "Kool" part about 8 years ago.

Offtopic

[Space_Soldier]

Everytime some one posts a Deep Inside article makes me think of Deep Inside Devon, or some other Deep Inside .

Re:Offtopic

[Baby Duck]

Exactly! I want to see SpaceShipOne from different camera angles.

Re:got an id ?

[Anonymous Coward]

what the hell are you talkin about? nothing requres registration.

Why does KDE always reinvent the wheel-Choices.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or three. Design the software so that it's toolkit atheistic. Harder than one or two, but that's mainly because of the "cowboy programming" mentality pervalent in the industry.

Re:Why does KDE always reinvent the wheel-Choices.

[Anonymous Coward]

Design the software so that it's toolkit atheistic.

You mean agnostic, and that's not an option for the people accused of "reinventing the wheel", as they aren't the original project maintainers and have no experience with that project.

MOD Parent up.

[INeededALogin]

I had never seen the document justifying the need for KDE and its purpose. Very nice read.

And when did it become off-topic to challenge the article including its use of acronyms. Misuse of a product's name often shows experience of using it and just how authoritative their view is.

Re:MOD Parent up.

[Anonymous Coward]

"MOD Parent up"? What parent? You posted at the top level. Your message has no parent. As such it's really difficult to figure out what on earth you're talking about.

By the way, why do people do this? Is it a matter just clicking on the wrong Reply button by mistake, or is there some sort of bug in the Slashdot software?

Re:What does KDE stand for?

[Anonymous Coward]

Its german:

"Krankes Desktop Environment" (morbid desktop environment). :)

Re:license issues - a short explanation

[IrishMist]

Obligatory link for the google-impaired: Q Public License

Re:Gmail invite right here!

[Anonymous Coward]

and now we spam the hell out of it!!!

Deep Inside Savanah

[swb]

I watched that one recently.

Naming for normals?

[otis wildflower]

Has it occurred to anyone that supporting non-l337 g33kz using KDE as a primary desktop will be made more difficult just because it's impossible to keep track of all the dopey names for things?

How does 'kopete' relate to 'chat' or 'instant messaging'? How does 'Konqueror' relate to 'browsing the web'? How does 'Apollon' apply to p2p? How does 'K3b' apply to CD burning/ripping? KMail works. KControlCenter works. Easy for someone to figure out what it does by its name. That is what A NAME IS FOR. We're not dealing with hungarian notation here: The whole idea of a UI is that it needs to be completely descriptive at a glance, and anything that is counterintuitive or obscurantist needs to be fixed or replaced. Normals expect this, they don't think it a crutch, and they're not expected to know better (as developers who take issue with HN may argue other developers _are_ expected to).

At least Apple (and even M$ to a lesser extent) uses prosaic names like iPhoto, iChat, Mail, DVD Player, iCal, Address Book, which makes it easier for mortals to understand their metaphor (Safari being the most egregious exception). KDE ware names seem purposefully opaque, and if you want to make a dent in the GUI you either have to hope for great icons and forget the names, or you have to do more work than you should have to do.

I love KDE, I think anyone from 3 to 103 could use it comfortably, but I shudder to think about all the help calls I'd get from people just trying to find shit in the interface.. It took me an hour of googling to figure out what the hell Apollon was! Anything that can or should be in a base KDE release (or a bundle, like kdemultimedia or kdenetwork) should have a simple, descriptive name, even if it means stepping on the toes of obsolete projects or capricious developers.

(OTOH, maybe you don't give a damn about condemning your less technical friends and/or family to a life of M$ hell. Oh well.)

Re:Naming for normals?

[Cyberdork]

Then name a good, existing, web browser name other than "Internet Explorer" and "Navigator". (those are the only decently descriptive names I can think of off-hand... the former one is pretty-much single platform today and the second one is too old to be viable today)

Re:Naming for normals?

[standsolid]

I present, for your edification, a screenshot of what a KDE Menu looks like.
If you have any questions to what a "Music Player" is, then there is little hope for you, yet.

Hell, This menu didn't comfuse my grandmother, and you're still complaining about supporting users.

Re:Naming for normals?

[Dravik]

Now is Outlook or Access the one you want for email. Hmmm, mabey it's Excel. Why doesn't Microsoft name their apps something easy to figure out just from the name. Something like Kontact.

Re:Naming for normals?

[m0rph3us0]

Clearly, SAFARI means Web Browser. I highly doubt people aren't running Linux because they can't remember that Konqueror is the browser.

Re:Naming for normals?

[skiman1979]

At least Apple (and even M$ to a lesser extent) uses prosaic names

As far as Microsoft software goes, what about their "flagship" office suite? I can understand "Word" but how does "Excel" say "spreadsheet"? How does the user know that "Access" is a database? (I use the term "database" lightly.) I don't think PowerPoint or Outlook are that descriptive either. We just know what these app names are for because we've used them for so long (for the Windows users out there.)

Re:Naming for normals?

[SFBwian]

LYNX? ;)

And I suppose Safari isn't a bad name. I mean, with all the spyware/malware/popups/virus/crap on the internet, it's a real jungle out there.

Re:Naming for normals?

[triptolemeus]

Good names include:

• Apache for a webserver (smoking signals)
• Evolution for an email suite
• Gimp for a drawing program
• Mozilla for a browser
• Exim for a mailserver
• Squid for a proxy (8 arms, wow, very intuitive).

Yeah you are right, KDE should work on it.

Re:Naming for normals?

[Anonymous Coward]

Konqueror was named I believe as a reference to the "Navigator" and "Explorer" paradigm. I've seen the slogan around (though it may be unofficial) "After the Navigator and the Explorer comes the Konqueror." (and the K is obligatory for many KDE based projects ^_~) And I seem to recall KDE having the slogan "Konquer your desktop" so I would say Konqueror fits.

And did you ever think that perhaps some of the names are acronyms or are meaningful in other languages? Take Kate for example, what on earth does the name Kate have to do with text editing/programming? Well nothing until you realize that it's an acronym that stands for "KDE Advanced Text Editor". And I recall a class or project or something that had a name that was meaningful in German but I don't recall what it was off hand.

I can't say for sure, but I would imagine that K3b stands for "KDE 3 Burner" or something similar.

And let me ask another question. What does Mozilla have to do with web browsing? That name is only meaningful to those that know its history. That it was Netscape Navigator's code name because it was the browser that was going to eat Mosaic. But I digress, what about Emacs? How would your non "l33t" hackers know what that program is used for?

Furthermore, you make your statement as if it were the rule and not the exception, but going through my kde 3.3alpha menu, I count.....15-16 or so apps that are part of kde that do not have first glance meanings in English (excluding the games menu) and that's out of....well over 100+ apps that come bundled with KDE. And if that were not enough, the KDE menu displays the generic names for the apps on the menu as well as the program name *by default*. So I don't think this problem is as great as you claim.

Re:Naming for normals?

[aardvarkjoe]

Has it occurred to anyone that supporting non-l337 g33kz using KDE as a primary desktop will be made more difficult just because it's impossible to keep track of all the dopey names for things?

No, it hasn't occurred to anyone. You've imagined the posts to every other KDE/Gnome article that complain about exactly the same thing.

Re:Naming for normals?

[Just Some Guy]

How does 'kopete' relate to 'chat' or 'instant messaging'?

In much the same way that "Visual Studio" relates to programming (and not graphic design) for the unitiated, and Trillian relates to instant messaging, and Eudora relates to email, and Vivio relates to drawing diagrams.

They only sound worse than the equally unrelated Windows names because you're not used to them yet, unless you really do independently associate the act of burning CDs with the name "Roxio".

Re:Naming for normals?

[eyeye]

Yeah...

But why not call a web browser "web browser"

If MS can call their SQL Server "SQL Server" then why not use "Web Browser".

Especially appropriate for open source because do we really give a shit if the trademark becomes diluted due to being a common term or not.

Re:Naming for normals?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhm, that's a screenshot of what YOUR KDE menu looks like. Mine in fact has the two strings reversed:

JuK (Music Player)
KMix (Sound Mixer)

Other things to note: Only a geek would know that a "sound mixer" is in fact a "volume control" and does not let you make mix tapes or create sound effects.

The days you need a separate program taking up a slot in the menu to adjust the volume should be long gone.

My menu also has the following programs:

Music Player
Media Player
Media Player
Video Player
Midi/Karaoke Player
Multimedia Player

Just the fact that there are so *MANY* programs is enough to kill usability.

People aren't idiots. They just have better things to do. When the KDE "usability" folks get this through their skulls, then maybe Linux has a chance on the desktop.

KDE needs to 1) install in idiot mode and 2) make it very difficult to customize. and 3) lose the "K" fetish. This will of course torture all the geeks so it will never happen.

Re:Naming for normals?

[Brandybuck]

Unfortunately, most generic names are already trademarked. Since Free Software developers do not have the resources to do a trademark search, it's safest to pick a "unique" name. Consider the grief that came about with "KIllustrator".

I'm wondering if you also argue that Mac OSX is woefully unsuitable for newbies because they used the name "Safari" for their web browser...

Re:Naming for normals?

[eille-la]

I'm totally agreeing with you on this.

A desktop environement for the end user should be as choiceless as possible. Include everything the user basicly needs and its gonna be OK.

Having choice between many programs force you to think about why use this or this, and the end users dont want to burn this kind of energy on their personal computers.

KDE is near getting a damn good windows alternative. More homogeneity, being enough fast and eye candy, I think thats the good way.

Re:Naming for normals?

[be-fan]

How does 'kopete' relate to 'chat' or 'instant messaging'? How does 'Konqueror' relate to 'browsing the web'? How does 'Apollon' apply to p2p? How does 'K3b' apply to CD burning/ripping?
How does Trillian relate to chat? How does Safari relate to browsing the web? How does KaZaA (or Gnutella or Morpheus) relate to p2p? How does Nero apply to CD burning?

Re:Naming for normals?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhm, that's a screenshot of what YOUR KDE menu looks like... Just the fact that there are so *MANY* programs is enough to kill usability.

Sounds like your complaint is about your distribution, not about KDE.

Re:Naming for normals?

[zsau]

I was interested in trying to use KDE, simply to see what it was like. However, the menu was too overcrowded, with many Gnome/GTK apps in it (I wanted to use KDE, not Gnome), which really put me off. Yours seems to only have KDE apps. How to you get rid of non-KDE apps from the KDE menus (or at least move them to a submenu)?

Re:Naming for normals?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you.

I'm an end user and I don't want idiots like you making choices for me.
I want to make my own choice thank you very much.

Just because I've been a KDE "End User" since the first pre alpha releases in 97, and have been runing from CVS ever since doesn't make me NOT an End User.

Projects that ignore the needs of their existing user base to chase after some imaginary promised land of users do not last long.

Re:Naming for normals?

[mabinogi]

KDE doesn't NEED to do anything other than exactly what it's doing right now.

I use KDE _because_ it is easy to customize.
I have absolutely no interest in working in an environment where changing your colour scheme is something you can only do by manually modifying a text file somewhere.

Your text does not agree with your conclusion, you say people are not idiots, they just have better things to do, yet then you say it needs to install in idiot mode, and make it difficult to customize.

People DO just have better things to do, but they also usually like making something their own first - which means customizing, and if it's difficult to do or hidden, then they'll count that against the environment, not as a point for it.
KDE allows you to easily make the customizations you want to do, when you feel like it, with a minimum of fuss, and then get straight back to work.
I fail to see how that's a bad thing.

Your point on the Media / Video players is a good one, but I disagree with the Mixer.
Someone interested in recording and creating sound effects had better know that a mixer is in fact a volume control - or more accurately multiple volume controls, it's not a "Geek" or computer term, it's an Audio term. Someone interested in it would either already know the difference, or would find out.

Re:Naming for normals?

[glebfrank]

How does Nero apply to CD burning?

You know. Nero, the emperor. Allegedly set Rome on fire. Fiddled while it burned, and all that.

Re:Naming for normals?

[binand]

How does 'Konqueror' relate to 'browsing the web'?

Well, the story I have is that first came the Navigator, then the Explorer, and finally the Conqueror. :-)

Re:Naming for normals?

[leifbk]

English-speaking people for a large part seem to miss the pun on "Burning ROM". Rom is the German form of Rome, and Nero the CD-ROM burner[TM] is a German product.

Re:Naming for normals?

[eille-la]

Thats bad that you posted a so insighful post as Anonymous Coward.

Trolling never really profits to anyone, including the ones who laugh.

Re:Naming for normals?

[bruthasj]

Get the best of both worlds by helping your non-geek friends through the menu: 1. Right click on K menu. 2. Select Panel Menu. 3. Select Configure Panel... 4. Open "Menus" tab. 5. Select "Description (Name)".

Re:Naming for normals?

[ViolentGreen]

Why doesn't Microsoft name their apps something easy to figure out just from the name

And grep, and gawk, and noatun, bison, konqueror, and nautalis are sooooo much more descriptive. I hate to disappoint you but this isn't a Microsoft only problem. In fact I don't really se it as a problem as long as there is some grouping to show what the apps do.

Re:Naming for normals?

[TheRevenant]

I think the complaint is that KDE's naming leaves it up to the distribution to tell the user what a program actually DOES (which is a great way to create inconsistency).

Especially when KDE has, and has used, the elegant approach of just slapping a "K" on the front of words: names like KWrite, KSpread, KPresenter, KChart KFormula, KOffice all tell you what they do. So why go with cryptic names like "Kugar" or "Krita"?

(Note: I'm not solely picking on KDE here: "The GIMP" and "Epiphany" are completely useless (titlewise) compared to their windows equivalents "Photoshop" and "Internet Explorer".)

minor problem ...

[wobblie]

konqueror 3.2 doesn't render their front page created website properly ...

Re:minor problem ...

[Anonymous Coward]

<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 5.0">

I think it's a feature to always render pages containing this wrongly.

License Issues with Qt

[0x0d0a]

I think that the article dodged around a number of the license problems with Qt.

Among other things:

* Qt is GPLed, and as such, prevents FOSS developers from using any OSS licenses that are not compatible with the GPL. Ironically enough, XFree86's license is not compatible with the GPL, and hence XFree86 could not include a Qt configuration utility.

* Ideological issues. Many developers and users move to Linux to avoid being under the control of a single company -- Qt is an attempt to change all that.

* TrollTech makes their money by hurting Linux. TrollTech has established themselves in a position where they can collect a tax on a vast number of developers *if* Qt becomes accepted as the standard Linux widget set. There is no such tax to develop non-GPL-compatible software for Windows -- I can get a copy of mingw or cygwin and, without paying a cent, sit down and write a closed-source application or an GPL-incompatible license for Windows. In that respect, Windows is more free than Linux is. Try telling a shareware author that instead of being able to write software freely, as he could for years on Windows and MacOS, that on *Linux* he must pay an up-front fee of $1500 *per* person that has contributed a line of code to the project for every piece of GUI software he writes. Wait and see his reaction. Even Stallman, the strongest GPL advocate in existence, does not expect everyone on a platform to be forced to use the GPL -- glibc is LGPLed, and the GPL does not attempt to force everyone on a *platform* to use the GPL. Readline (which is GPL) is not a valid comparison -- there are alternatives to readline. To maintain consistenct behavior in a GUI environment, *everyone* must use the same GUI widget set.

* TrollTech has seized a phenomenal amount of power over the future of Linux. If they want to, they can increase fees on Qt to whatever they desire (fees based on expected return of a product using Qt, for instance), they can place whatever demands on companies licensing the non-GPL Qt that they'd like (as long as they continue to offer the non-free Qt under some terms, the KDE agreement protections do not kick in. For whoever thinks that companies will never turn harmful, I give the example of Caldera becoming SCO). The omission of anything guaranteeing user and developer security is, IMHO, unlikely to be purely innocent -- this is a document that was carefully gone over by lawyers. TrollTech has firmly ensconced themselves in a position to exploit the entire future GUI environment on Linux. Remember that Linus Torvalds and many other people license their software specifically under the GPLv2, because they do not trust the FSF not to abuse their position and revise the GPL in such a way to allow wielding a body of IP that has never had an equal. In a similar way, many of us do not trust TrollTech, an organization founded for the sole purpose to make money (unlike the more ideologically-oriented FSF) not to take the simple step of revising their terms of sale on the QPL to exploit a phenomenal body of IP. Time upon time in the past, when a company has a knife to the throat of other companies in the software development community and times turn harsh or stockholders want a bigger return, that knife is used. I'd rather not go through a massive, bloody situation on Linux. GTK is just too good of an alternative, and it's too easy to avoid the entire mess.

* It is not feasible to do C Qt programs. This is a technical issue rather than a legal one. Even Microsoft did Win32 and then built MFC on top of it, allowing folks to use C if they want to. Qt imposes C++ no matter what one does (or a high-level language like Python calling C++). This breaks a long-standing *IX tradition of not *requiring* anyone to use anything but C, if a developer so desires. GTK+, on the other hand, has a C API and a standard set of C++ bindings built on top, a more conventionally accepted approach.

I'd like to reiterate that there are a lot of people that like KDE that m

Re:License Issues with Qt

[Seli]

"Qt is GPLed, and as such, prevents FOSS developers from using any OSS licenses that are not compatible with the GPL. Ironically enough, XFree86's license is not compatible with the GPL, and hence XFree86 could not include a Qt configuration utility."

Your first statement is wrong. Should I bother reading the rest?

http://www.trolltech.com/developer/faqs/license_gp l.html#q19

http://www.trolltech.com/developer/faqs/license_gp l.html#q114

Re:License Issues with Qt

[0x0d0a]

Your first statement is wrong.

Fair enough -- I should include OSI-approved but non-GPL-compatible software. This is not remotely all OSS software: consider pine, povray, XFree86, anything under the old BSD license, qmail, djbdns, etc.

Re:License Issues with Qt

[0x0d0a]

Excuse me -- I left a sentence unfinished:

Many people see the alternative to Qt becoming the standard GUI API as

this should read:

Many people see the alternative to Qt becoming the standard GUI API as a C API, like GTK+, being adopted, and are not thrilled at such a prospect.

Re:License Issues with Qt

[Anonymous Coward]

* Ideological issues. Many developers and users move to Linux to avoid being under the control of a single company -- Qt is an attempt to change all that.

Funny you mentioned that. The GPL is actually *more* ideological than the LGPL under wich GTK is liscensed.

Trolltech could never dominate KDE or Linux. 'Cause if they would start doing that, KDE can easely fork Qt and continue on it's own. Even if Trolltech would ceise to exist there is no problem, because the current Qt would then become public under a BSD-liscense.

If you don't like the Qt liscense, feel free to develop with GTK. The current integration work will probably make it easy to do a KDE app with GTK in the future.

Re:License Issues with Qt

[0x0d0a]

Trolltech could never dominate KDE or Linux. 'Cause if they would start doing that, KDE can easely fork Qt and continue on it's own.

It is certainly true that, if KDE is willing to become X11-only, it would be possible for the KDE project to fork Qt at any point. However, it would also force KDE and Qt and all software that uses it to forever be GPL-compatible (excuse me -- there was a correction further down -- OSI-accepted licenses would also be accepted).

Even if Trolltech would ceise to exist there is no problem, because the current Qt would then become public under a BSD-liscense.

Right. However, I do not view that agreement as a sufficient degree of security. I brought up that point in my post:

If they want to, they can increase fees on Qt to whatever they desire (fees based on expected return of a product using Qt, for instance), they can place whatever demands on companies licensing the non-GPL Qt that they'd like (as long as they continue to offer the non-free Qt under some terms, the KDE agreement protections do not kick in. For whoever thinks that companies will never turn harmful, I give the example of Caldera becoming SCO).

Re:License Issues with Qt

[ultrabot]

Trolltech could never dominate KDE or Linux. 'Cause if they would start doing that, KDE can easely fork Qt and continue on it's own.

Not really. It would leave Qt stranded as GPL-only, with not even the remotest possibility of creating an open source application, even if you had the money.

Re:License Issues with Qt

[0x0d0a]

Not really. It would leave Qt stranded as GPL-only, with not even the remotest possibility of creating an open source application, even if you had the money.

I think you mean "closed-source". :-)

Re:License Issues with Qt

[Brandybuck]

It's even more broad that that. The QPL does not specify OSI-approved licenses only, it only specifies that the source code be available with rights to modify and redistribute. Pine and povray might possibly qualify. Old BSD licenses with advert clauses most certainly do. qmail and djbdns probably not.

Re:License Issues with Qt

[Anonymous Coward]

No, according to this press release (http://www.trolltech.com/newsroom/announcements/0 0000004.html), KDE has the right to release Qt under the BSD License if Trolltech does not release a new version at least every 12 months.

Re:License Issues with Qt

[jbolden]

Excellent comment BTW.

Other people are responding regarding the 4 licenses you can get QT under. It appears have partially retracted your previous comments, though your example of a shareware author still stands. BTW that can be handled via something like cripple ware where the author is careful to include the QT linking in a GPLed component and sell a commercial part that introduces additional features. That will make redistribution illegal for the commercial version (which would be a plus for the shareware author). So I think this issue can be overcome.
Alternately if they genuinely mean shareware (as opposed to the more common dieware which calls itself shareware, there is nothing in the GPL that prevents you for asking for money to people who use your product. I'm not sure that shareware code couldn't be GPLed.

KDE is the flagship produce for QT. The purpose of the KDE when it was founded was to be a GUI using the QT widget set (read its founding 1996 document). The KDE non profit corporation is the entity that gets righs to QT in the case that Trolltech has problems XYZ... The developers from both sides coordinate efforts. The two are married at the hip. So I think your point about seperating them (i.e. KDE should exist without QT sort of like if the Harmony project had been succesful) is a non starter.

As for C in KDE here I want to partially disagree. First off I will agree that making C++ the primary language and not C is a huge change in Unix culture. Unix and C are joined at the hip and everything Unixy is C oriented. There are QT linkings for Cobol, C linking can exist at the same level as Cobol, Pascal, Perl, Java, Ruby... linkings. What is true however is that QT prefers C++ and to really get effeciency requires using C++. So I will disagree you can't do QT development in C, rather you can't do it at the low lever that C programmers are used to. The situation is very much like the situation in modern day windows where the widget sets all exist above the C level except that people write binding sets freely for QT but not for Windows (there aren't binding for Perl or Ruby to MFC or .Net in the same way).
Frankly I consider this a feature and not a bug. I don't see any reason C should exist at the application level at all any more. I think its fair to consider this a difference in opinion and not a disadvantage. I should also mention that Gnome's original developers were C guys who wanted to do a GUI. So there is a GUI which offers the lower level interface.

Re:License Issues with Qt

[turgid]

The UNIX ABI on each platform is simple, well-defined and stable. It is intimately linked with the code produced by C compilers. It is the accepted standard way in which binaries can call each other.

C++ is far more complicated. Also, there is not yet a widely-adopted standard for a C++ ABI. It is currently not possible to link code compiled with two different C++ compilers on the same system (sometimes different versions of the same compiler e.g. gcc). This can cause problems where a vendor may supply a library compiled with a proprietary compiler and a user may wish to compile an application to use that library using e.g. gcc.

In addition, while compilers (and interpreters) for most other languages are designed to use (or at least support) the C ABI, there is little support for any C++ ABI.

Re:License Issues with Qt

[jbolden]

Good point as to an area where C is still very far ahead of C++. However, I'm not sure the licensing issues don't make the whole thing moot however since I'm hard pressed to see how a vendor can supply binary libraries under propietery license for KDE anyway given the licensing structure.

my first experience with KDE

[bludstone]

My first experience with KDE was this weekend.

I finally decided to put my money where my mouth is (so to speak) and installed mandrake 10.

Brilliant, I must say. But, I only have one concern. I was a bit taken aback that the install ran slower then windows 2k on my celeron 400.

When i say slower, i mean that browsing the web took longer and programs took longer to load and execute. Windows took longer to move around the screen. Menus took longer to "pop up." Basic stuff, really.

Functionality-wise, I am not complaining, I really like how things are working so far. I just need to familiarize myself with a few more things (navigation, program location, ect) and ill be fine.

I admit though, I was looking forward to a slight speed increase. I was a bit taken aback that things actually slowed down.

Re:my first experience with KDE

[Anonymous Coward]

I admit though, I was looking forward to a slight speed increase. I was a bit taken aback that things actually slowed down.

It seems to me X/KDE doesn't scale down too wel. On my Athlon Thunderbird 1Ghz KDE feels at least as fast as Windows XP (KDE 3.2 saw a huge speed increase, so it might be faster now). But it seems that if you go slower, Windows tends to be faster than KDE. Not only KDE btw, Gnome will feel slow too.

Things that can help:
- If you have an nVidia of ATI video card, install their driver instead of the generic one. It speeds up 3D, but I seem to feel it speeds up KDE too.
- Turn off some eyecandy (like drow-shadows for menu's, a different theme, etc.)
- Try a different distro.
- If you have a lot of time and the knowledge: recompile everything with the right compiler flags for your CPU.

On the bright side, KDE seems to be a bit faster ever release. And hopefully, the new X server x.org is working on will be a lot faster too.

Re:my first experience with KDE

[bludstone]

Yeah. Im running this on a celeron 400. efficiency is important. It doesnt need to run FAST, just a bit faster would make it okay.

are "drow-shadows" (no idea!) and some wacked out theme on by default? Is there a "low impact" theme or something along those lines that I can grab? Im not to into theming and whatnot. I always go for the simplest and most straightforward. Any suggestions?

Ive got very little time and knowledge when it comes to linux. Im most interested in getting it set up so it WORKS, and the muddling ill have to do is minimal.

Think of it as trying to get linux to work without needing to know unix commands. (failed, as some installs require unix commands.. but thats only installing!)

Thanks for your feedback, AC. :)

Still need to figure out how to get bittorrent to work.

Re:my first experience with KDE

[nusuth]

You can use the personalizer (kpersonalizer) to quickly turn off eye candy. Or you can fire up the kde control center (kcontrol) and go over all appearance & themes stuff one by one. Don't worry, you can't break your install from kcontrol unless you try to do just that.

IMHO, the best theme for KDE is plastic but almost all themes are "low-impact". Only a few used to use fancy ways to render their widgets, I don't know if any survive.

Re:my first experience with KDE

[debest]

You're running an operating system that is "state of the art" and comparing it to an OS which is over four years old.

Not that this is an excuse, but that's the way it is. A current distro (like Mandrake 10) is going to first cater to those with current hardware. With a recent AthlonXP or P4 you are less inconvenienced by the difference in speed.

The fact is, Linux distros like Fedora, SuSE, and Mandrake are resource hogs, particularly running a big desktop environment like KDE or GNOME. So, you've got the following options: 1) upgrade your hardware, 2) use a slimmer window manager, 3) try Gentoo (compiled specifically for your HW), or 4) live with it.

Sorry!

Re:my first experience with KDE

[anno1602]

For easy eye-candy setting, run kpersonalizer (Alt+F2 and type kpersonalizer, hit enter) and turn everything off, though you can perhaps leave font anti aliasing on.

Style-wise, if turning off the eye-candy doesn't suffice, choose either one of the "Light styles" or the .NET-style (which is the fastest).

Version-wise, if Mandrake 10 doesn't include it. upgrade to the latest KDE 3.2. KDE has experienced continual speed improvements since the release of 3.0.

Last but not least, RAM is the key. I had KDE running with on a rather slow box, too (P3-450) and found that more RAM works wonders. For KDE and KDE-based apps, 128MB should suffice - but be aware the Mozilla and OpenOffice have a rather big memory-footprint, so if you plan to use those regularly alongside KDE, go 256. No amount of style/eye-candy tweaking will help you if your PC doesn't have enough main memory.

Re:my first experience with KDE

[nusuth]

You should have seen it before kernel 2.6, prelinking and KDE 3.2!

Linux distros are usually slower than windows for desktop use. That is especially true for big and heavy stuff like KDE, Gnome, Mozilla and openoffice.org. The nicest thing is most bottlenecks can be and are being eliminated.

Re:my first experience with KDE

[PalmerEldritch42]

I don't know what sort of distro you are on, but I think this will work on any of them... you can go to the KDE menu, then Settings, Desktop Settings Wizard and that will walk you through optimizing KDE for a slower machine. Particularly, the bit about "Eye Candy". Then at the end of the wizard, it will let you get into the Control Center where the rest can be tweaked.

Re:my first experience with KDE

[Brandybuck]

I would have to blame Mandrake for your slow down. On a system at work I had a dual boot Win2k and FreeBSD/KDE. Doing am informal test of the two, the FreeBSD/KDE boot was much faster, and most application launches were much faster as well.

Re:my first experience with KDE

[GeekBoy]

If all operations from a GUI are slower, I'd be a bit suspicious of your graphics card and X driver. What graphics card do you have? I have and nvidia g-force ultra, and when I use the default driver that comes with mandrake, (which is really the one that comes with XFree86), it is indeed much slower. However, when I install nvidia's (proprietary, non-open-source) driver and kernel module, it is much much faster. (and I can play 3d games :) ).

Re:my first experience with KDE

[schapman]

hmm.. I'm running KDE3.2.2, kernel 2.6.6, slack 9.1 on a 1200, with 512MB RAM, full install with a bunch of unnecessary crap running ( - n00b), but it runs faster than my 2500+ o/ced to 2.2, w/ 512MB ddr400 running xp w/ all the crap turned off. maybe some tuning is needed

Re:my first experience with KDE

[big tex]

"The fact is, Linux distros like Fedora, SuSE, and Mandrake are resource hogs, particularly running a big desktop environment like KDE or GNOME. So, you've got the following options: 1) upgrade your hardware, 2) use a slimmer window manager, 3) try Gentoo (compiled specifically for your HW), or 4) live with it."

No, No, No!!

I've been using SuSE since 6.1 (and therefore KDE 1.x) on the same P2-400, and it keeps getting faster. (except for KDE 2.0. That one kind of sucked.) I put in more RAM about three years ago (cut out the swapping) and that's about it.

How is Gentoo any faster than all of the i586 binaries and the customized kernel that SuSE ships? Can't be more than .00001% of the time the computer is waiting on ME.

Shit, if I tried to compile everything myself I'd damn near need a faster box.

Re:my first experience with KDE

[yuri benjamin]

Shit, if I tried to compile everything myself I'd damn near need a faster box.

Gentoo should only be installed at an installfest with a few powerful PCs on the same LAN running distcc.

That way your less-than-modern PC can have nicely optimised binaries with the help of gruntier machines doing the compiling for you.

There's the added advantage that there are guru volunteers at an installfest.

Un-assisted installs should use something like Mandrake.

Just MHO :-)

Re:my first experience with KDE

[Billly Gates]

Its bloated load time with the glibc libraries that are the problem. Not graphics but load times and memory usage.

I could not believe the performance boast when I went to FreeBSD.

It hurts me to see Linux in this state but the horrible gcc combined wiht the worse glibc makes some nasty bloated programs.

Re:my first experience with KDE

[Bob Uhl]

Linux distros are usually slower than windows for desktop use.

No--big, heavy, buggy, mammoth, insane software such as KDE and GNOME is usually slower. A Linux box running fvwm2, rxvt, emacs and firefox screams. I don't know why folks waste their time with top-heavy software instead of just doing the Right Thing.

Re:my first experience with KDE

[Tukla]

I'm willing to sacrifice a little speed for the convenience and features of an integrated desktop environment. I don't care if my computer "screams" if it's going to be a pain in the ass to use.

Re:my first experience with KDE

[Bob Uhl]

But that's part of the problem. These integrated environments are much more of a hassle to use. They get in my way, with panels and toolbars and menus, wasting precious pixels. They get in my way, by slowing me down.

I like the convenienve and features of emacs; I like the convenience and features of ion. I like the convenience and features of LaTeX. That's good software.

Re:my first experience with KDE

[debest]

He mentioned that Mandrake 10 (running KDE 3.2, I presume) responded substantially slower than W2K on the same machine. I believe him. W2K (and XP, for that matter) is snappier in general use on that vintage of hardware. I have a K6-2 450 with 512M RAM, and the extra memory still is not fast enough to let my distro (currently SuSE 9.0 upgraded to KDE 3.2) seem even remotely as quick as XP on the same machine.

It makes no difference whether or not a current distro feels faster today than one from 6 years ago on similar hardware (a claim I question, BTW). Here, today, MDK 10 "feels" slower than W2K. This is true. No arguments change this fact.

I've never had time to fool with Gentoo: some don't think that compiling yourself makes a bit of difference, others swear by it. I'm assuming that there is some truth to the gospel of Gentoo, and that many zealots can't all be wrong! True, the computer's waiting on the user most of the time, but the moment that *I* want the computer to respond to me is when I notice that it's being sluggish, and I would probably appreciate that extra half-second here and there. It would just feel better, somehow. ;-)

Re:What does KDE stand for?

[Zapdos]

script "Kiddies Dorky Emasculation"

It's not that hard

[bcore]

How does 'kopete' relate to 'chat' or 'instant messaging'? How does 'Konqueror' relate to 'browsing the web'? How does 'Apollon' apply to p2p?

I suppose one way of figuring this out would be that the default menu entries for these apps clearly state what they do.

Kopete is found under taskmenu--internet--Instant Messaging (Kopete). Konqueror is lister as "Web Browser (Konqueror)"... etc.

I can't say that I ever had troubles finding the right apps in KDE, even when I was a total noob.

Re:It's not that hard

[Just Some Guy]

I suppose one way of figuring this out would be that the default menu entries for these apps clearly state what they do.

Ummm, no. The default menu entries on your particular distribution give descriptive names, but that's a configurable option.

Right-click a panel and choose "Configure Panel", then the "Menus" tab. You'll get a selector like:

Menu item format:

• Name only
• Name (Description)
• Description (Name)

My Debian install had the first option selected by default, but that may be because I was playing around with alpha releases of KDE 3.2 a while back and the settings might've stuck stuck around.

Wrong question

[grouse]

Don't you mean to ask why does KDE always reinvent the KWheel?

Due to the innate advantage....

[Anonymous Coward]

...of not running the servers out of their basement, I doubt they care.

Ehhhhhhhem

[Anonymous Coward]

How hard is it to press the K Button, choose internet and then Instant Messenger to start kopete?

In case you haven't noticed, kde is using a new naming scheme in its menus: What it is for (App Name).

For example: Web Browser (Konqueror) isn't that hard either.

Relax

[ultrabot]

I'd like to reiterate that there are a lot of people that like KDE that might be willing to use it *if* Qt was actually distributed under a sane license, like LGPL.

People really shouldn't fret over the GPL'd status of KDE as far as just using it goes. It's mostly a concern for developers and corporations, not so much individual users. KDE will serve us nicely until Gnome gets better.

However, ultimately, I think that people should stand up for having a *free-as-in-beer* development environment on Linux to write whatever they please, and not the kind of universe with fees and forced reliance upon agreements that TrollTech wants to introduce.

I feel very relaxed about this. Large Linux companies (esp. RH) are very aware of the problem, and won't screw this one up. All the strategic eggs seem to be on the Gnome basket. That won't stop KDE rocking on the individual or even enterprise desktops, however. Qt will never be a requirement for developing a Linux app, and a slight look and feel glitch is not going to prevent a good proprietary product from being succesful on both desktops.

Dear mods

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be out of your minds to rate this dumb and simply false flaimbait interesting.

Re:Dear mods

[0x0d0a]

If you think that I'm under some misapprehensions concerning Qt licensing scheme, you're welcome to clear those up, to argue that some concerns are not of issue in the real world, or to correct mistakes.

It is certainly not a flamebait post, though I admit to having strong worries about the use of Qt. Saying "GNOME is teh suck" or "KDE blows and the developers are stupid" would be flamebait, with no content. This might have errors, it might contain emotional bias, and it might make some people unhappy, but it is not flamebait.

Re:What does KDE stand for?

[Anonymous Coward]

discussion and the 'Kool' part was dropped

I propose to rename it for FDE (and no, F does not stand for Free...). Applications would be:

F*Mail
F*Browser
F*ile Manager...

You had it coming

[Anonymous Coward]

It is certainly not a flamebait post, though I admit to having strong worries about the use of Qt.

This is a KDE article, so you can expect a lot of KDE-fans moderating the article. Discussing licensing problems is prone to get you modded down. It's a standard procedure on /. Where's the fun in mod points if you can't reward the people who agree with you and punish the ones who don't ;-)?

Re:You had it coming

[0x0d0a]

It's a standard procedure on /. Where's the fun in mod points if you can't reward the people who agree with you and punish the ones who don't

Maybe, but I've criticized Linux issues before, argued that Palladium/TCPA are weak and ineffectual and not particularly dangerous, and Apple issues on apple.slashdot.org and not been modded as flamebait for doing so -- I've seen many +5s. I mean, if Slashdot was literally nothing but groupthink, I wouldn't spend my time here.

Well, who knows.

& to add to that...

[eugene ts wong]

...they reject our decent story submissions. & to add insult to injury, after they reject our story submissions they say that "it's a slow news day".

Re:What does KDE stand for?

[Anonymous Coward]

That KDE was ever called the "Kool Desktop Environment" was only ever an issue because it was officially denied for some time. Now they openly acknowledge it, making it no big deal.

Nothing to see here now. Move along.

Ancient news

[osho_gg]

This article is an ancient news. I am surprised to see it at slashdot. This article was published shortly after KDE 3.2 was released in Feburary 2004. Since then KDE 3.2.1, 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 have been released!!

I do agree with the the poster that this article is probably the best written piece on insides of KDE and their overall desktop applications development methodology. It shows that the KDE architects have developed a very good infrastructure to create applications that integrate well with the entire desktop, while keeping a very consistent look and feel.

Osho

Re:license issues - a short explanation

[Brandybuck]

Unfortunately that explanation of the QPL is severly flawed.

1) The problem with a pure-QPL Qt was that it was not considered GPL compatible. The explanation missed this point, and it was the sole reason Debian and Redhat had conniption fits over KDE.

2) The explanation says that the QPL allows changing the license on later releases. While this is true, it's also true for the GPL. Neither can be changed retroactively, but authors may always change their licensings for new releases.

The differences

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, they complement each other. Arstechnica has editors who actually edit and moderators who actually moderate, while Slashdot has editors with political agendas who would fail an English-as-second-language test and any raving cretin can be a moderator. Arstechnica has a lot of scholarly articles, while Slashdot has a lot of jealous undergraduates whining about anyone who is successful, racing to be the first to submit any even remotely anti-Microsoft article that pops up. Arstechnica has a lot of industry professionals and others who can debate maturely and construct well-formed sentences, while Slashdot has a bunch of losers who still rate "...in Soviet Russia" posts +5 Funny. On the other hand, Slashdot's search function works, Arstechnica's has been almost just about to be nearly fixed for years.

So no, there's not much overlap.

Not only that, it's a dupe-Knock, knock...

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm convinced--the editors absolutely do not read Slashdot. "

Do the executives at Proctor and Gamble use Tide on their laundry?

oh!

[nazsco]

> "The article is full of links, screenshots and diagrams."

Now, THAT's an article i'd read

KDE: Useful, but bloated

[petrus4]

>I was a bit taken aback that the install ran slower >then windows 2k on my celeron 400.
>When i say slower, i mean that browsing the web >took longer and programs took longer to load and >execute. Windows took longer to move around the >screen. Menus took longer to "pop up." Basic stuff,
>really.

I've got the release of KDE that came with RedHat 9, and I will say that it has gradually been winning me over, lately. Konqueror is a very useful file manager when in twin-pane mode, and Konsole also makes my life a lot easier.

That said, one thing I have noticed is somewhat poor performance on slower machines, and even on my own setup (Celeron 1.7, 512 Mb ram) things can get a bit choppy at times. I would tend to conclude that KDE is built primarily for aesthetics and secondly for functionality, with efficiency being a fair way down on the list of priorities.

If you're sufficiently computer literate that a few less frills won't bother you, I'd recommend Fluxbox, a smaller and lighter window manager which from what I've seen has become rather popular with the LFS crowd in particular. XFce is another possible choice, and personally I've always been a huge fan of Enlightenment. E can be a bit slow initially, though...you'll need to turn off some of the more frivolous additions such as the desktop micro-window and so on, but I used to run that on a Celeron 400 myself and had no problems.

I didn't used to like KDE at all I will confess, but I've learned recently that it does have it's place. Resource efficiency however is not what it was designed for, so you really need to have the horses to drive it.

GNOME, friend of proprietary software developers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Once again, I fail to understand why I'm supposed to shun KDE again. What was that? Because Troll Tech doesn't give its product away? Because they don't allow free licensing for proprietary software?

Is GNOME superior because it's more friendly to proprietary developers? Why do I care? If a company has a good product, what's so bad about a company charging for the use of a toolkit that'll be used in a for-charge piece of software?

Re:How geeky is that ?

[Enahs]

Once again, I don't understand why people shout "save the proprietary development companies!" and why they champion a GNU project as the best choice for proprietary software development.

Look, it's very simple. If you're going to use a GNU-compatible license, there's no need to worry. If you're writing the next Microsoft Word and hope to make millions, cough up $3000 dollars. Capitalism at work.

Yay, GNOME, for making one of the few platforms that one can write proprietary, for-profit software without contributing monitarily to the original project. Kudos!

At least when someone decides to write closed for-profit software under Qt, it helps to ensure the future of Qt.

Besides, GNOME's tied to Mozilla at the hip, and they don't exactly seem to "get" this whole FOSS thing anymore, anyway. Can't repackage Thunderbird with the original art? C'mon. What's next? GNOME guys, howabout an independent LGPLed HTML widget, eh?

Note to mindless GNOME zealots: This comment posted with Epiphany.

Deep Inside...

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, I'll admit it: I'm strangely aroused by this headline! :-)

Re:What does KDE stand for?

[farley13]

It _should_ be KDE Desktop Environment. I mean when in doubt go for the recursive acronym right ?

K fetish

[jbolden]

I think the K fetish (and the G fetish) are going to be very useful for people in figuring out what "brand" of application they are using.

KDE brand apps have a K. They act a certain way and do things a certain way. They are designed to work well together. Similar to in 1990 Micorosoft's point that Excel and Word worked together better than Lotus 1-2-3 and WordPerfect so if you used both of the later you might want to switch to the former just for ease of use.

Gnome brand apps should similarly have a G (Gnumeric...) but not all do.

People are used to branding. What does Pepsi or Dr Pepper have to do with Cola?

Re:K fetish

[TheRevenant]

Generally, that comes after you're well known. I'm pretty sure "Pepsi" used to be called "Pepsi Cola". Coke still says "Coca-cola" on the can, even if it's shortened in daily conversation.

Once everyone knows who you are THEN you can go to a cryptic name like "KFC", but before then you're just throwing away potential clients.

There are, of course, exceptions. If you genuinely have a 'killer app', you can call it what you want and people will beat their path to your door. Or you can take the MacDonalds approach and shove your product until everyone's face until it sticks. But by and large...

Re:Dependencies (on ARts)

[Daengbo]

I really love KDE. I just wish that ARts was more easily capable of using network transaprent sound. I know that it should have the capability, and I have seen posts like this but, somehow, all the guys who'd love to see it happen for thin clients can't seem to make it work.

Esound is not very good, but at least it works easily over a network.

If I'm wrong (plus all the other guys working on this), and there's and easy answer, I'd love to hear it, but until then, I'm lashed to GNOME and IceWM, and my favorite KDE sits out there in the"want it, but can't have it" pile.

Re:Dependencies (on ARts)

[Daengbo]

A good description of this problem is here

Politics

[JamesKPolk]

"The project is apolitical, without any bias regarding specific cultures
and platforms, independent from economic, emotional and social issues;"

So defacing the home page to oppose the EU Parliament voting for software patents isn't a political, economic, emotional, or
social issue?

Problem is with glibc

[Billly Gates]

I have seen BSD perform better while Linux gets slower and slower after each new gcc and glibc release with my own eyes.

I do not recommend Linux now on any machine uder 1gz. I switched to FreeBSD awhile ago but whenever I put Linux on my athlonXP it seems quite sluggish compared to both Net/FreeBSD and Windows2k.

I think its the linked glibc since the problem is isolated.

Re:Problem is with glibc

[Brandybuck]

I would have to disagree with you. While FreeBSD does seem, in my opinion, to be slightly faster than Linux, this cannot account for the poor performance the prior poster was complaining about.

Go try out Slackware, Gentoo, or another "minimal" distribution. You'll find the Linux to be just as fast as FreeBSD. Fatter distros (who like to refer to themselves as "big boned") are another story.

Re:How geeky is that ?

[Billly Gates]

With a BSD licence I can release my products under any license I want!

Gnu is viral in which it infects everything it touches which also have to be free.

In this day and age of outsourcing and cutting costs additional software licenses are unacceptable unless required. More than likely if it can not be done wiht free tools it will be done with VS.net since everyone already has a license for it and that sticks people back on windows.

QT is great tecnically but I would not use it at work without a license for obvious reasons.

Re:Dependencies (on ARts)

[BenjyD]

I think they just need to find an alternative to ARts. Why does arts still consume CPU even when there is no sound playing? It just sits there blocking /dev/dsp and using 1% CPU.

Dream IDE?!?

[Bob Uhl]

The article goes on about a supposed 'dream IDE.' Well, when I dream of an IDE I imagine one which can be run across a tty, accessed from around the world; one which doesn't require mondo resources.

I dream of emacs. Actually, I don't dream of it--I just use it. Can KDE's tools perform an interactive diff? Does the text editor integrate with CVS such that check-in/check-out is instantaneous? Do they abstract away remote acess issues such that anything FTPable appears to be on my local machine? Are they dynamically extensible in LISP?

Folks, desktop GUIs are just Way Too Big. And not nearly powerful enough.

Re:Dream IDE?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, Yes, Yes, and Nobody But Emacs Weenies Cares about Lisp.

Now, can I use Emacs without memorizing 200 control-key combinations? I had to read a tutorial to learn how to get out of the effing program!

Re:Dream IDE?!?

[fred87]

"I dream of emacs." "Folks, desktop GUIs are just Way Too Big. And not nearly powerful enough." Ah! You're an emacsOS user :)