First KDE 4 App ('Kind of') Running

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

First KDE 4 App ('Kind of') Running

Posted by timothy on Sunday May 22, 2005 @09:43AM from the this-is-the-building-back-up-phase dept.

An anonymous reader writes "It looks like the first KDE 4 application is running. Click the link for screenshots." In short, "Kate now kind of works."

74 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

A program is running! Film at 11! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-22 09:45 · Score: 0

It's a reaaaally slow day, isn't it?
Plastic by FidelCatsro · 2005-05-22 09:46 · Score: 0

Ouch that looks a tad simmilar to the Fisher price XP theme , I am looking forward to KDE 4 for the features but a screenshot of KATE(a great text editor IMHO which fills a void between nano and emacs/VI)
using a theme which shines of XPness is not the great.
Although it is good to hear that KDE 4 is progressing

--
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
1. Re:Plastic by ArcticFlood · 2005-05-22 09:56 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, the theme is kind of weird (maybe it's related to KATE kind of working), especially the buttons in the upper left compared to the ones in the upper right of the screen.
  
  --
  This is here so you don't ignore the last two lines of my posts.
2. Re:Plastic by FidelCatsro · 2005-05-22 10:01 · Score: 1
  
  I normaly shove all of my buttons on the top left (Used to using Mac) and KDE has fully customisable Button positions(has had for a while) , its just the colour scheme thats kind of pandering
  
  --
  The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
3. Re:Plastic by ArcticFlood · 2005-05-22 10:02 · Score: 1
  
  I meant how one set of buttons was much more pixelated then the others.
  
  --
  This is here so you don't ignore the last two lines of my posts.
4. Re:Plastic by X0563511 · 2005-05-22 10:05 · Score: 1
  
  Am I the only one out there that likes the hard edged right-angle style that Win95/98 used? I don't like all this smooth and/or bubbly stuff everyone is using now. Gimme dark colors and hard edges and I'm happy.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
5. Re:Plastic by FidelCatsro · 2005-05-22 10:07 · Score: 1
  
  ah apoligise , I hadn't noticed that till you mentiond it .Your right actualy though i suspect thats just during this early build period or an artifact of the screenshot utility
  
  --
  The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
6. Re:Plastic by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-22 10:12 · Score: 0
  
  At this point, nothing has been changed visually from the KDE 3.x version. The only benefits this new build is intended to have are the speedups thanks to Qt4.
7. Re:Plastic by Brandybuck · 2005-05-22 11:13 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  KDE has several widget styles, so nothing it tying you down to Plastik. Try Phase, for example (I wrote it). Or Highcolor or Light Style. Or heck, use the Windows theme if that's what you truly prefer.
  
  --
  Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
8. Re:Plastic by Nasarius · 2005-05-22 11:51 · Score: 1
  
  No, it doesn't look anything like Windows XP. It looks like a slightly modified Plastik, which IMO is very clean and visually pleasing without being gaudy.
  
  --
  LOAD "SIG",8,1
9. Re:Plastic by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 03:55 · Score: 0
  
  Rounded corners appeal to Mac fags.
KDE4? by Cthefuture · 2005-05-22 10:19 · Score: 2, Interesting

Is there a list of what is planned for KDE 4? Like what will be new and updated, new functionality, etc. ?

Trolltech just pisses me off so much. I mean Qt is OK but damn if the price doesn't keep going up, and up, and up... It's already insanely expensive and it just keeps going higher. Who the hell are they trying to target with that thing anyway?! If they sold it for $1000 I can guarantee they would sell 3 or 4 times the number of licenses. They would lose nothing moneywise but gain massive market dominance (snowball effect). Then regular folk like myself could purchase and use Qt to do great things because it really is the best cross-platform toolkit out there (free or not).

--
The ratio of people to cake is too big
1. Re:KDE4? by twener · 2005-05-22 10:23 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Some stuff is listed in the Wiki: http://wiki.kde.org/KDE+4+Goals
2. Re:KDE4? by eviltypeguy · 2005-05-22 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  I would have to agree. Just because I don't want to place things I write under the GPL (I want to use a different Open Source Certified License) I would have to pay outrageous amounts to use it. Not only that, if I want to use it for non-open-source-but-free-as-in-beer projects I also have to pay the ludicrous amounts. No small company in their right mind is going to pay the amounts they ask for unless they know well before hand that they're going to make a profit still. It's silly to me to have a toolkit that costs way more than the development compiler, IDE, etc.
3. Re:KDE4? by Brandybuck · 2005-05-22 11:09 · Score: 1
  
  Is Qt too expensive? Not according to the market! People *ARE* buying it at that price, because sure as heck it ain't the free edition downloads that are paying their way. Trolltech is hiring, by the way. So they must be doing something right. The reason the Qt price keeps creeping upwards is because the market keeps bidding the price higher and higher.
  
  If you're a proprietary shareware/crapware author, then look elsewhere. Trolltech has already said you're not their market. So get over it. If you are a professional developer, however, Qt is very affordable.
  
  --
  Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
4. Re:KDE4? by LWATCDR · 2005-05-22 11:20 · Score: 1
  
  Well the reason is this. You are often better off selling a few at a higher price than more at a lower price. You have fewer people to support so your profits are higher. If you do not like it write a better cross platform toolkit and sell it for only $1000 If you are right the world will beat a path to your door.
  Now what I do not like about QT is how it has seemed to pass the FREE test when things like OpenOffice and Safari seem to get people nickers in a knot.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
5. Re:KDE4? by Cthefuture · 2005-05-22 11:46 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I am a small business owner. The price for 50 developers is a quarter million dollars.
  
  Look at it this way, the cross-platform market is small. There just isn't much money to be made there so the cross-platform toolkits should be cheap. Most of the time I would like to support other platforms but the cost can't be justified due to Qt's huge price and the relatively small cross-platform market. The only people it hurts are the users.
  
  If it weren't for the one or two cash-cows Trolltech has they would already be out of business. They're like a government contractor sucking the teet of wasteful spending (I wonder if one of their cash cows is some government).
  
  The reason I want Qt to be cheap is specifically so it does become massively widespread. This will make platform dependance a thing of the past. This helps us all.
  
  --
  The ratio of people to cake is too big
6. Re:KDE4? by QuantumG · 2005-05-22 12:26 · Score: 1
  
  The cross-platform element really isn't that important to Trolltech. BTW, don't those 50 developers cost you $4 million a year in wages? Doesn't the office they work in cost you more. $250k is chump change to you.
  
  --
  How we know is more important than what we know.
7. Re:KDE4? by X0563511 · 2005-05-22 12:53 · Score: 1
  
  I want to know what genius came up with the name Trolltech. Even outside of forum-speak trolls arn't usually looked upon as a nice creature.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
8. Re:KDE4? by Brandybuck · 2005-05-22 13:35 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  First of all, 50 software developers kicks you out of the realm of "small business owner". But regardless whether you are small or medium, the price of Qt is per developer. So treat it as a per developer cost. This isn't a monthly, or even yearly cost, it's a one time cost.
  
  If you think $2500 is too expensive for tools of the trade, then talk to an automechanic, or someone in the building trades. I knew a tile setter who had his van stolen, and it cost him a heck of a lot more than $2500 to replace his tools of the trade. And that's not counting the van!
  
  --
  Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
9. Re:KDE4? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-22 13:37 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Just because I don't want to place things I write under the GPL (I want to use a different Open Source Certified License) I would have to pay outrageous amounts to use it.
  No you don't -- that's what the QPL is for. You don't need to go with the GPL if you're not writing a GPL app.
10. Re:KDE4? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-22 13:39 · Score: 0
  
  QT is free. It is under the GPL, the same license as the kernel itself.
  
  What more do you want? the BSD license?
11. Re:KDE4? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-22 13:43 · Score: 0
  
  The toolkit isn't 2500. It's 4500 for the cheap version and near 6000 for the one with database access.
  
  2500 would actually make a hell of a lot more sense...
12. Re:KDE4? by Cthefuture · 2005-05-22 13:45 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  It's not chump change. If you think it is then you'll never be a successful business owner.
  
  That money would pay for MSDN subscriptions for those same developers for 5 years.
  
  --
  The ratio of people to cake is too big
13. Re:KDE4? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-22 13:48 · Score: 0
  
  GPL or QPL makes commercial applications impossible.
14. Re:KDE4? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-22 13:59 · Score: 0
  
  First of all, get some perspective. Apple developers tools are free. Linux development tools are free. Microsoft development tools are a couple hundred bucks, or around $1000 for almost everything they make (all the OS's, development tools, etc.).
  
  Qt is priced from $3840 to $8650. That's way more than anything else. It's not "tools of the trade" pricing. Would your mechanic friend pay $500 for a screw driver? (maybe if he worked for the government, huh)
15. Re:KDE4? by bluGill · 2005-05-22 14:24 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  No, but my mechanic friends do have several thousand in snap-on brand tools. Someone who wants to be a mechanic come to work the first day and has the snap-on man bring several thousand worth of tools the first day. (Snap-on gives easy credit to new mechanics, and they have the about the best tools, though you pay twice as much for them)
  
  QT is a tool kit, not one tool. Buy the QT toolkit and you get hundreds of widgets, strings, and other tools. All well written (many people like them better than the C++ STL), debugged (as much as anything is debugged), and supported (Unlike this support knows something, unlike most of the others you named).
16. Re:KDE4? by bluGill · 2005-05-22 14:32 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Sure it is. IF it saves just one week worth of work it is well worth it. Where I work we have our own custom tool kit, that contains much less than QT. Way back when (early 90's - before STL did things better, but in a different way) we paid someone to spend months making the tool kit. Just this year I personally spent several weeks tracking down bugs in it (And I know of some I was unable to fix). I also have to re-do things that QT includes already.
  
  A successful business owner needs to consider the cost of not buying QT, not just the cost of buying QT. It is likely that those who don't buy QT will spend several weeks doing things that QT makes easy. No matter what toolkit you choose there with be something that is harder than it should be. QT isn't perfect for everyone, and there are good reasons to choose something else. However choosing based only on cost is one of the things engineers hate about management.
17. Re:KDE4? by natmsincome.com · 2005-05-22 15:07 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Ask and you shall receive.
  
  wxWidgets has binding for numerous languages and is under a license like the LGPL (see the home page). Anyway if you want to support multiple platforms try it out. There lots of applications use it already.
  
  It doesn't quite have the scope of QT which from my understanding includes ALOT of extra functionality that isn't just GUI based.
  
  Your logic doesn't make sense though. If the market is small they the product should/will be expensive (cost to develop ~ $1000 with 5 customers you'd need to charge $2200 to make a 10% ROI with 500 customers you can charge $22 and still make the same ROI - excluding support).
  
  That was the DOS/Shrinkwrap revolution. Other companies at the time tried to sell the OS for $10,000 + because that's how long it took them to make it.
  
  Even if wxWidgets didn't exists there would still be Java, TCL, Motiff etc. The fact is QT is very nice and worth the cost if your in that area.
18. Re:KDE4? by Gregg+Alan · 2005-05-22 15:30 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The reason I want Qt to be cheap is specifically so it does become massively widespread. This will make platform dependance a thing of the past. This helps us all.
  
  No, you want QT to be cheap so you can make more profit through Trolltech making less profit. If, as another poster has mentioned below, it's so easy to offer a cross platform toolkit on par with QT at such a great price and still remain a viable company, why don't you do it? Why doesn't someone else do it? (Remember, Microsoft is not cross platform).
  
  Do you really believe that Microsoft wouldn't charge more for a cross platform toolkit? Honestly?
  
  Trolltech has already helped us all. KDE uses QT for free and has produced an excellent environment. Developers that have a grasp on their cash flow buy commercial QT licenses and make money selling their programs. Then there are people like you that can bitch about having to pay Trolltech money by trolling on Slashdot. See? Everybody wins!
  
  --
  Here before all but 8486 of you.
19. Re:KDE4? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-22 15:32 · Score: 0
  
  No it doesn't, it only makes proprietary applications impossible.
20. Re:KDE4? by HvitRavn · 2005-05-22 16:36 · Score: 1
  
  The price is so high partly because of currency. Remember, the money that would buy you a car in Norway would buy you two cars, a house, and a pretty wife in the US.
21. Re:KDE4? by be-fan · 2005-05-22 17:48 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Qt passes the "free" test because it's GPL. It's as free as the Linux kernel, or GCC or Emacs.
  
  --
  A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
22. Re:KDE4? by JohnFluxx · 2005-05-22 19:30 · Score: 1
  
  The biggest selling point to me, by far, is the superb documentation. Compare the documentation for, say, QString http://doc.trolltech.com/4.0/qstring.html against the complete awful docs you get for borland c++ etc.
23. Re:KDE4? by naden · 2005-05-22 19:32 · Score: 1
  
  If, as another poster has mentioned below, it's so easy to offer a cross platform toolkit on par with QT at such a great price and still remain a viable company, why don't you do it? Why doesn't someone else do it? (Remember, Microsoft is not cross platform).
  
  What you mean like RealBasic ?
  
  I mean come on .. $99 for standard RB license versus $1790 for QT one. I know QT is heaps better, but that sort of price difference is ridiculous.
  
  --
  Funtage Factor: Purple
24. Re:KDE4? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-22 20:39 · Score: 0
  
  You're Merkin, right?
25. Re:KDE4? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-22 21:44 · Score: 0
  
  Did you miss the point? If the price difference is "ridiculous", why are they still in business? Obviously enough people think the "heaps better" Qt is worth the "ridiculous" price difference that Trolltech are making money and growing.
  
  If RealBasic (or wxwidgets, GTK+, etc) are suitable alternatives, then how come lots of commercial companies prefer to pay extra money to Qt? Do you think that, collectively, a lot of companies have just gone insane, or do you think that Qt might actually provide value that outweighs the price difference?
26. Re:KDE4? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-22 21:47 · Score: 0
  
  You mean they don't allow proprietary applications. If you are building proprietary applications, you have no business whining that Qt isn't free enough for you.
27. Re:KDE4? by stevey · 2005-05-22 23:16 · Score: 1
  
  I definitely agree on the benefits of chargine more for something, up to the point the market will sustain.
  
  I used to feel guilty for asking for money for setting up servers, etc, as favours for friends.
  
  But I noticed that when I started advertising commercially I got a lot more customers when I said "I'll install Linux and give you a proxy server / filtering NATing gateway for $500" than when I did the same for "$100".
  
  It makes no sense to me, in both cases I'd take a machine (supplied) install Squid + Debian on it, and offer support afterwards.
  
  But for some small businesses they have this belief that if something is expensive it's better. So nowadays I charge small businesses more than I believe I'm worth - and give charities and friends the same work for free.
  
  Funny ole world ..
28. Re:KDE4? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-22 23:18 · Score: 0
  
  You're not comparing the same thing. As I mentioned most of the development toolkits are free or less than $1000. This would be like if the mechanic could get most of their tools for free. Then they wouldn't be so happy having to spend thousands on Snap-on, that would be unacceptable. Right now they happily pay thousands because that's just how much it costs, all mechanic tools cost that much.
29. Re:KDE4? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 00:41 · Score: 0
  
  Depends on which Version you take...
  
  So for a single platform, it would be $1790 and $2880
30. Re:KDE4? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 03:53 · Score: 0
  
  wxWidgets is a nice project, but it is in a technological stone age when it comes to C++ programming style. Qt isn't perfect either, but since it has no real competitors it can afford to have extremely expensive licensing fees.
31. Re:KDE4? by LWATCDR · 2005-05-23 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  The current version of QT is only free on Linux. it is not free running under windows. Safari is GPLed as well but they are getting a load of crap for not making it easy to fold their patches into KHTML. OpenOffice is also free but some of it's source is written in Java...
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
32. Re:KDE4? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 06:02 · Score: 0
  
  Nobody said they wanted it free, just cheaper.
33. Re:KDE4? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 06:05 · Score: 0
  
  You model only makes sense if cross-platform development is your whole purpose. For most people having Qt would be "nice" but is way far from necessary. Because of this, the price is too high for most shops. Not because they can't afford it, but because the ends don't justify the means.
34. Re:KDE4? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 06:17 · Score: 0
  
  There are many reason why wxWidgets is not very good. How many applications do you see written using it? Not many? Why do you think that is? I'll tell you.
  
  One is that wxWidgets is essensially a cross-platform MFC. MFC is not the best model to follow.
  
  For it's age you wouldn't think it has as many bugs as it does. It has to be the buggiest toolkit that I have ever used. You end up spending more time fighting with the toolkit than actually developing your application. Sure it's quite often possible to get most things working right but it takes a lot of trial and error. There are often many ways to accomplish the same thing in wxWidgets but very often only one actually works and that's where you waste so much time. And then there are just plain flat-out normal bugs riddled throughout the whole thing... it's just nasty.
  
  It's huge. You have a massive Qt-like overhead plus the overhead of the underlying toolkit that wxWidgets is using. Due to the way wxWidgets is designed it includes all kinds of stuff even when you arn't using it. The smallest (statically linked) wxWidgets application is several meg in size, even if you're not using all the features. And that doesn't include the underlying toolkit (like MFC, Gtk, or whatever). It's braindamaged.
  
  Custom widgets are quite hard to do cross-platform with a toolkit like wxWidgets. This is to be expected though so is forgivable. It still could be an issue for some though.
  
  So it sorta works, but really not very well at all.
35. Re:KDE4? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 06:30 · Score: 0
  
  ?
  
  (Up yours lameness filter!)
36. Re:KDE4? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 06:51 · Score: 0
  
  Ya, it feels a lot like the old English cars. Always breaking down, bad electrical systems, fix one thing then another breaks. Basically they were lemons. People did drove them, but if you owned one you always had that feeling in the back of your head that something wasn't right. wxWidgets feels the same way, just a bad feeling in your gut.
  
  (you'll have to parden the pun since wxWidgets is apparently an English project; those wacky English)
37. Re:KDE4? by Brandybuck · 2005-05-23 07:42 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  With Qt, I don't even NEED a MSDN subscription! Nyah! Besides, the price of Qt is a one-time payment, so it lasts me five years anyway.
  
  --
  Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
38. Re:KDE4? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 08:30 · Score: 0
  
  Now that's an interesting explaination. How true is this?
39. Re:KDE4? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 09:01 · Score: 0
  
  Bullshit. I quote: Now what I do not like about QT is how it has seemed to pass the FREE test when things like OpenOffice and Safari seem to get people nickers in a knot.
40. Re:KDE4? by bluGill · 2005-05-23 12:35 · Score: 1
  
  I can buy tools at a "dollar store". For a few bucks I can get the basics. Not free, but not much less. I can get good tools for half the price of snap-on. (In fact I do, but mechanics don't because the quality and service eventually pays for the cost)
  
  I know a carpenter who paid $350 for his hammer, out of his own pocket. Everyone else he works with is happy with a $25 hammer. (The $20 hammers ruin your body quick) The $350 is much better than any other hammer I've ever used. Worth $350? I'm not sure, but it is much nicer than the $25 ones. (I do however own a $70 hammer). This is something he paid for out of his own pocket, not some government waste.
  
  It isn't the same thing, but it is plenty close. You can get free or cheap tools if you want. Good tools often cost a lot more and are worth the price.
41. Re:KDE4? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-24 00:44 · Score: 0
  
  > If, as another poster has mentioned below, it's so easy to offer a cross platform toolkit on par with QT at such a great price and still remain a viable company, why don't you do it? Why doesn't someone else do it?
  
  What you mean like RealBasic ?
  I know QT is heaps better...
  
  Er, if you know that RealBasic is not on a par with Qt, then why did you offer it as a response to a question specifically about toolkits on a par with Qt?
  
  I mean come on .. $99 for standard RB license versus $1790 for QT one.
  
  Look at Microsoft pricing sometime. How much does Microsoft's enterprise software development package cost? Why, blow me down if it's not about $1790! My, could it just be that Trolltech are charging the right and fair price for what they're selling? I do believe they are!
  
  And if you want it for free, just use the fucking GPL or QPL versions. The licensing terms are very reasonable.
42. Re:KDE4? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-24 00:52 · Score: 0
  
  You model only makes sense if cross-platform development is your whole purpose.
  
  No, it makes sense in any circumstances where using Qt would save time. You don't think a toolkit can do that for single-platform applications?
43. Re:KDE4? by 10Ghz · 2005-05-24 01:04 · Score: 1
  
  Safari is GPLed
  
  No it isn't. WebCore is LGPL'ed, like KHTML's license requires, but Safari is not.
  
  they are getting a load of crap for not making it easy to fold their patches into KHTML.
  
  Yes and no. KDE-folks did not complain about Apple. They specificly mentioned that Apple is following the license and their actions are legal. What the KDE-devs complained about was the USERS who whined how KHTML-developers are "lazy" and "incompetent", since they are so slow at merging the Apple-improvements. KHTML-guys just said that since Apple does not work with KDE-developers, and they purposefully make merging of their patches as difficult as possible, it takes long time to merge those improvements.
  
  --
  Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
44. Re:KDE4? by electric_mind · 2005-05-24 19:03 · Score: 1
  
  Talk about ridiculous prices... we'll develop and debug your very own Qt-like libs in Argentina for a mere $125k.,,
  
  --
  
  Yes, I'm stealing your jobs! Don't you just hate me?
45. Re:KDE4? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-24 23:43 · Score: 0
  
  lol, I would really like to see that
46. Re:KDE4? by LWATCDR · 2005-05-25 01:54 · Score: 1
  
  I am sorry I thought that Safari was GPLed. That is my bad since I do not live in the Mac world I have not kept up as well has I should have.
  Well I do not think that the KHTML developers are lazy or incompetent but I do wish they would merge in the Apple improvements as soon as they can. Since I do not add code to the project or give money I can not bitch too much. At best I can suggest and hope.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
47. Re:KDE4? by electric_mind · 2005-05-25 03:22 · Score: 1
  
  No problem! Got $125k?
48. Re:KDE4? by 10Ghz · 2005-05-25 19:31 · Score: 1
  
  Well I do not think that the KHTML developers are lazy or incompetent but I do wish they would merge in the Apple improvements as soon as they can.
  
  They would love to do that. But it's very difficult since all they get is an occasional code-bomb (read: huge blob of code) with no access to their bug-database (so they can't check what "this fixes bug number 43665" means), no revision-history (so they do not know why some changes were made and how the code evolved), several references to internal OS X API's (which can't be used in KDE) and no real communication between Webcore-folks and KHTML-folks. KHTML-folks tried to work with Apple, they were willing to sign NDA's, they gave Apple-folks CVS-accounts etc. etc., but Apple wasn't really interested.
  
  --
  Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
More Screenshots by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-22 10:40 · Score: 2, Informative

more screenshots of kcontrol and kate running on kde 4.
Optimizations by molnarcs · 2005-05-22 10:43 · Score: 4, Interesting

One interesting comparison is memory usage of new kate compared to present one. KDE developers do an amazing job when it comes to code optimizations - and it seems they will do it again for KDE 4.
I began using Linux with RH 7.3 & KDE 3.0 on an old 700Mhz Duron with 256Mb SDRAM. I kept running linux - and later FreeBSD - and KDE on this machine for two years, and every major KDE release seemed like a minor hardware upgrade. That is one of the reasons I kept that old machine for that long - and longer, previously it had win98se installed. First, I thought I will either replace it completely or buy more RAM, better CPU in half a year. Then as I went through each KDE realese - and probably better C++ support in gcc also helped - I felt less and less the need to upgrade the hw. I wonder how long they can keep up producing more efficient code that runs better and better on old hardware. Currently KDE 3.4 has only one 'serious' requirement: memory. If you have 256+, itt will run nicely on a 300Mhz celeron, but of course, you'll have to turn off some eyecandies to reach an agreeable performance.

Keep up the good work guys and gals!
1. Re:Optimizations by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-22 10:51 · Score: 0
  
  If they're so great then why is KDE such a dog when compared to GNOME?
  
  To put it in perspective, GNOME has pretty losey performance itself (sometimes a pure C approach is actually slower than just using C++ because of all the pointer dereferencing).
2. Re:Optimizations by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-22 11:11 · Score: 0
  
  In your opinion , i find KDE runs rings around gnome on older hardware .
3. Re:Optimizations by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-22 19:06 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  One interesting comparison is memory usage of new kate compared to present one. KDE developers do an amazing job when it comes to code optimizations - and it seems they will do it again for KDE 4.
  
  This may just be down to the new GCC and Qt. KDE developers do do an amazing job, with KDE getting quicker every release since 3.1 for me, but in this case, they are sitting on top of some pretty major optimisations themselves.
4. Re:Optimizations by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-22 19:13 · Score: 0
  
  When as the last time you compared the two? I find GTK+ applications slow compared with KDE applications, let alone GNOME applications.
5. Re:Optimizations by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 18:43 · Score: 0
  
  gtk/gnome apps seem to run better on low memory machines than KDE for me too.
More customisability, flexibility important by Eravnrekaree · 2005-05-22 12:41 · Score: 1

I think KDE should be a state of the art sort of thing. Keeping memory usage reasonable is important, however, it should not interfere with functionality and capability. There are many other environments that exist for those who are using 486s and who just need a simple text editor and a low memory usage window manager.

Also, I hope they make sure these desktop environments completely themeable, personally I have distaste of the aqua and brushed metal themes , and would like to be able to completely change the look and feel of the UI. Customisability is important but it doesnt have to get in the way of useability, the key is to put more advanced settings in a seperate dialog way rather than all in one dialog, and come with a reasonable set of default settings.

One thing I dont like about most desktop environments is they are hard to configure and work the way I want them to. For instance, I would rather have the panel in a regular, floating resizable window rather than locked to one side of the screen, but I cant seem to change its behaviour. For those people who just want the preconfigured environment and dont want to customise anything, they can have that, while those who want to customise can do so in "expert configuration" screens or whatever, where they can configure and control everything to their hearts content.
Wrong by jeti · 2005-05-23 05:26 · Score: 0, Flamebait

It is true that all the tools you mentioned are under the GPL. However, software you develop with Linux, GCC or Emacs typically do not inherit the GPL (there are special allowances in the Linux license and you don't link against the other tools). If you link against the GPL version of Qt, you inherit the GPL license.

So the situation is not comparable at all.
1. Re:Wrong by metamatic · 2005-05-23 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  Guess what? If you use Qt the way you use GCC or emacs--as a part of your build environment--then Qt is free. For example, if you build an internal map editor for your arcade game and use Qt, Qt is free.
  
  Contrariwise--if you use GCC or emacs the way people tend to use Qt, and link against them, then you fall under the GPL and have to ship source. And people have done just that--made special versions of GCC (Apple), or special versions of emacs.
  
  So the situations are exactly comparable. Furthermore, the FSF explicitly encourages developers to use the GPL for their libraries, in order to give more of an advantage to free software. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html
  
  --
  GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
2. Re:Wrong by be-fan · 2005-05-23 12:20 · Score: 1
  
  That's nothing special about Qt. That's just the GPL. Qt is as GPL as any other piece of GPL software, and as such its as "free" as any other piece of GPL software.
  
  --
  A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Re:KDE4? A: wxWidgets by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-03 05:25 · Score: 0

Better than QT. Comprable at worst.