Slashdot Mirror
KDE 1.1 is out
erich@wrq.com was the
first to tell us that
KDE 1.1 is released.Update: 02/07 10:38 by H : It appears that while the annoucement has been made the binaries are not yet availible-should be up any time now.
Update: 02/07 02:55 by CT : thanks to Christian Kreibich
for the KDE Logo.
take that winblows....one step closer to that crap you call a GUI.
Version number inflation does not make KDE
somehow superiour to GNOME and does not ensure
ultimate success.
GTK is free without hesitation. It isn't just
barely free. It really is free, without a doubt.
Nobody has ever needed to question this. You can
even mix existing LGPL code into it, or mix bits
of it into a GPL app or LGPL library.
(no, linking and inheritance are not enough
when you want to grab a nice bit of code for
a text-mode app)
nuff said
Right now:
I'd take GNOME over KDE for myself
**BUT**
I'd give my mother KDE over GNOME.
ftp://ftp.gnome.org/
KDE is not the only working desktop environment in town anymore...
Though, this being Slashdot, chances are *you* are not actually a programmer who would actually use any of these freedoms that the LGPL provides nor actually contributed to GTK or Gnome.
Linux rules.
And G*NO*ME isn't even CLOSE to 1.0!
Why dont they just give up? Perhaps if they has chosen a supported lib to base themselves on, they might have *SOMETHING*. Some people never learn. You've gotta start with a very solid base, and thats where commercial software comes from. I'm sure Linux was started with Visual C or perhaps MASM, then once there was a stable foundation came a compiler for the platform, which still isn't as good as commercial offerings, but it's good enough, but without a stable commercial compiler at the begining Linux probable wouldn't have gone anywhere. Destops need to have the same thing happen.
If gnome doesn't switch to something solid soon, they may soon go the way of harmony.
Sure that's the way to discuss the future of (linux? computing? our planet?)
14" HA!
0.99.x, yeah right! At least KDE is actually stable.
If that is your concern, get an iMac.
The iMac is functional and working, yet
easy to use. It won't tax your puny brain.
Saying nobody, would be incorrect. Some of us care about not being pryed into a small little hole. Even if I didn't need/want to change anything, I still like the ability to.
But of course, everyone should be free to use crippleware--if they so desire.
I personally tried out KDE, but I much prefer GNOME. But, with either of them, I didn't have a need for either of them--come on, what can they do better than console programs?
I've written quite a bit of code.
That includes parts of the kernel, Gimp stuff,
and some important utils.
What have you done lately?
The Qt license does indeed suck, and the KDE
developers are assholes to brush off the issue.
Some of us like shareware, DOS, Xenix, the old
JDK license, Netscape 3 without source...
Might as well use KDE if you are one of those.
hmm...
Linus had access to SunOS, which he liked.
Linus owned a copy of Minix, which he hated.
SunOS could support a gcc cross compiler.
Minix could support assembly (as86 and gas).
From this, you can guess how Linux was started.
They both rule. I don't like KDE. I like and use Gnome. Someone else might not like Gnome, like and use KDE. Yet another person might not like or use either.
That's what Open Source is about: Freedom to choose what works for you, not being locked into one option.
the current gnome-libs is at 0.99.5. seems close to 1.0 to me
QT and GTK are *not* the only GUI libraries
available under Linux...there are some good
alternatives around.
I'd use KDE if it used Lesstif. Why? Better license, and IMHO it's not disgustingly ugly like QT is.
Such a shame gtk-- is such peace of crap.
That very may well be true, but I think it will be a lot easier to support other languages with gtk (because it is written in C). Talking to qt with other languages is a lot harder because it uses C++.
KDE isn't something I'd want to associate with.
I guess you need to sleep with farm animals.
'nuff said
This is the EXACT type of thing we were warned that MS employees would be up to -- posting messages in support of MS to those who might not be able to discern that the message might be false. It almost sounds reasonable that Linux would have been started in "Visual C" or "Masm" coincidentally BOTH MS products. Why didn't you say TASM, Or Turbo C?
Hmm?
unless someone says otherwise I'll be happy with pre2
its whiny lusers suck.
No you twerp, the whole KDE, not just a bloody look. As in, use LessTif *instead of* QT, not just a fuqing theme.
Look at this place. No wonder most of the
flames are by an AC -- most of the good posts
are too! Most of _everything_ is from an AC.
It's like 10-to-1 or more AC.
DUDE! This is AWESOME!
Ada is a language you fool.
Hey, I have an Intercal compiler. That doesn't
mean I can write a KDE app in Intercal.
GNOME does have Ada support. What about KDE?
Don't tell me GNOME is already ahead...
Linux 0.99 came after Linux 0.02.
Clue: the version number is supposed to
jump when the software is working great.
Ada is a programming language commonly used
for real-time software, life-supporting software,
and US military software. Ada can help reduce
security holes, since it is a strongly typed
language with bounds checking.
There is a GNU compiler for Ada. You can compile
to Java byte code too.
Anyway, sometimes people want to write GUI
software in Ada. It is a very nice language.
Can KDE support this?
How do KDE applications print things, then?
...by drawing on a regular QT paint device.
I'd obvioiusly want to use the same widgets
as everything else does. This is stupid.
If the KDE library situation is really as
flawed as people report, then KDE must die.
Microsoft: everybody will use IE and Windows.
KDE with Qt: everybody must use C++.
Sorry to say this, but C++ is not a serious
language. It has all the badness of C with
all the complexity of... Hell, perl is better.
Version number inflation does not make KDE somehow superiour to GNOME and does not ensure ultimate success.
HUH ? 1.1 does not sound inflated to me. Versions 1.0 and above are usually considered stable. 1.1 is the second stable release after 1.0 (which was released almost a year ago). The version system makes sense to me. GNOME is 0.99x which means unstable (beta at best). Gnome project has to work hard to keep up with KDE. This is the second stable KDE release and GNOME is still not stable..
The GNOME toolbar can't even keep up with my slowest mouse dragging. Check out the ugly panel imitation. What a joke.
It would be ashame to see those gnome people wasting all their time.
Perhaps if KDE becomes too good, RedHat will buy Troll tech and shut them down?
Because if you're a freeware author linking against GPL'ed libraries, you have to release your code under GPL too. No BSD, no MPL, etc.
(of course, this is assuming you'd rather not go GPL to begin with)
*ROTFLOL*
:-). You are just a troll and scoot from here now.
Are you actually this clueless or is it just MS's money?
You really think Linus had Windows on his PC and used VC to compile the first cut of Linux? Did VC even exis in 1991?
*ROTFLOL*
oh... let it be... ur bluff is called, mister (or miss
--
*Plain lazy, not an Anonymous Coward*
-Nikunj Bansal.
;-)
Well, you might laugh but VC++ beats gcc(egcs) hands down on almost any level (portability being single exception.) Programming enviroment provided in latest VC is outstanding and even DDD being as good as it is, doesn't come close.
1) microsoft is not the root of all evil (just most of it).
:) Of course not. It would have to be at least semi-hidden for it to be a conspiracy! The way things are right now, EVERYBODY knows what Microsoft is doing - MS, their competitors, the people, the DOJ...
:)
Very true. Microsoft is not the root of all evil. They are just a simple tyrant, like history has seen many of. And we already know what's going to happen - either they will mature to become an industry-friendly company, or they will be crushed and overthrown by the unhappy masses which they've oppressed.
2) there is no conspiracy.
(chuckle)
But while there is no conspiracy, there's certainly deception involved in MS's strategy, which is a separate issue. So it's useful to point it out when it happens.
Also, is there any particular reason for an all-caps subject? It makes your post look immature. I'm sure it was not necessary.
Either that, or it alerts the readers. The original poster no doubt intended the latter. Given the appropriatness of the subject matter, I'm betting it worked.
For the record, Borland Turbo C/C++ v3.0 for DOS has the best C/C++ IDE ever created =)
Yeah... I remember hacking in Turbo C, once apon a time...
GPL is really free? No. BSD license is _really_ free.
...and the winner is: Mr Anonymous Coward with his "Hm" post!
:D
Apparently you haven't been in Linux land for very long, in fact, you really don't know all that much about computers, do you?
Yeh, Linux was definitely written in VC... and Linus uses MS-Project to plan kernel releases. hardi har har
AndyM
Actually, imho the MSVC++ environment is pretty poor in comparison to the Borland C++Builder one. Integrated environments are nice, but XEmacs does the job for me :)
Ok, by now, everybody in this forum knows that the guy I'm replying to is being paid by MS to lie on their behalf.
;-)
But before he makes his ungrateful exit, I'm going to issue a counterchallenge which he won't be able to answer: name ANY SINGLE way in which VC is superior to egcs. He's already lost all credibility, so it'll be sort of tough to answer.
I've worked on projects in the past in which VC gave me major headaches. VC was the ONLY compiler, for instance, among several platforms (a number of unixes, beos, windows...) that failed to perform even a simple task, like calling the constructor of a global, correctly.
Obviously, the bug-hunting capabilities under Microsoft weren't even close to good enough to produce bug-free OS code.
Maybe it's because they have neither open-source development, nor a quality debugger such as gdb under linux.
...but come on, can't you do any better than that?
Those assertions are a little too far fetched for you to fool anyone here at slashdot. We're smarter than some of the threads here would have you believe.
Well, Qt is pretty much moving towards a GPL license. Wether it will *be* the GPL or some slightly different version. If it uses GPL, then at least KDE could go on borrowing GPL code from other places without anyone distributing KDE facing the risk of a lawsuit from someone who does not want their code linked to Qt.
Either way, Troll Tech can make money by selling Qt to companies with differing licenses, which is pretty much what they want.
And for those of us who are not satisfied with such licensing, there are other toolkits.
I can't beleive how crappy both KDE and GNOME are. I just don't get it-- who want another stupid solitare game? Yeah, I know the stupid solitare game looks like the crappy calculator which looks like the stupid background selecter (who can't type xv -root ?????) which looks like the retarded editor which looks like the dumb, overdecorated terminal.
Looks like a huge amount of work for absolutely no reason. In fact, about the only thing people want is a properly behaved, properly sized fvwmish pager. I've seen it a hundred times on the mailing lists (including the wmaker list-- i know it's not related) and no one listens 'cause windows doesn't have one. That's why most sensible people will install KDE or GNOME once, ask themselves why they just did that, and go back to fvwm, pager and emacs. We'll keep the libraries around for the occasional decent app like GIMP or lightweight browser.
I love this, "If you dont like license, then I bet you never even wrote any code" attitude that I seems to be the typical, born from anger, response to every complaint about the license from an anonymous poster.
I can understand that you don't want to see a bunch of idiots who, by repeating some catchy ideas they neither truly understand nor truly care about, spoil a good thing which may include hundreds of hours of your own work. You don't want QT to die because of a bunch of people who don't know better keep saying "qt license is evil, don't every use it."
But, at the same time, I have to laugh because about the only response I ever hear about license complaints is the same-- oh you may think your response is original-- but they all say "you don't like the license, you probably never even write any code" together with "not everything is free, amigo."
QT just needs a killer app. GTK has the gimp, what does KDE have to quiet people? KDE itself doesn't count because it sucks (just like GNOME.) So, that's what I say-- need a killer app for QT. Do not even say KWord. All wordprocessors suck.
I'm getting so tired of all you GNU fundamentalists, it's almost like some whacky religion (compare with fundamental islam). Why can't you just all accept the QPL? It should look even better than the GPL in your eyes because it disfavours commersial software (they have to pay to Troll - which has done a great job with Qt)
I choose my stuff based on technical merits, not on fine line licensing issues. That QPL isn't GPL blabla is just bullshit...
I know. I (have to) use it.
Comes a time when flashy trash don't matter, what matters is code.
flash vs. functionality
hackers vs. programmers
USA vs. Europe
coding vs. design
RedHat vs. Linux
talk vs. work
procedural vs. OO
religion vs. working software
There's a lot of highschool kids on SD I believe
But I agree with what you're saying. A resizeable file dialog would make a lot of sense.
If you think language bindings in C++ are harder than C prove it. This is the sort of stupid C biased FUD I hear all the time from lame kiddie programmers that can't be bothered to learn C++.
Get yourself egcs and a good C++ book and do youself a favor, learn the language before you critisize it. In my opinion the C bias surrounding Linux is *THE* major detractor to contributing to the effort.
w-h-a-t-e-v-e-r.
GNOME rules, at least it looks good. Thats less then I can say for KDE and its Windowish appearance.
Thank you!
(Here's a cookie)
It's about time someone had a clue! I use KDE because it works. When I chose KDE, it was the only working DE available. When GNOME goes 1.x I'll check it out and make a judgement call, based on it's merits vs. the things I've come to expect from the KDE. If GNOME wins out, I'll switch.
At no point will I be reading over licenses and submitting copies to my lawyer to see which one is more 'free' or in the GNU 'spirit' because frankly I don't care. The QPL is more than free enough and actually discourages commercial software by forcing a fee to be paint to Troll Tech if closed-source software is written.
Anyway, it's all good. =)
(uselinux@email[nospam].com for flames, ect)
I just feel sorry for you guys... It seems that you think that just because somethings just a little bit like winblows it cant be good. Windows got a hell of a GUI, that you can't take away. And didn't yuou just say that winblows just copied everything from other os anyway?
Haha
That was the best thing I've read in a long time.
I'm right, you're wrong! GNOME rules
Well let's see who else we can stereo-type today....
/. there all of these Tyrant wannabes come out looking for battle and world domination. God forbid one of these projects wouldn't be the supreme dictator of the Linux world.
Not to rant at your post in particular (it's just at the bottom of slashdot).
This is getting rediculous. I've used/use both KDE and gnome (ie: in their full blown window manager/panel/particular apps state) And for a few days it's just great. But after a few weeks I find myself doing everything from xterms anyway.
They are both IMO extraordinary products. But they both have some maturing to do still. Gnumeric for example is a very nifty product and the KOffice is looking promising. Are they each to have their own file formats (binary at that)?
Gnome has farther to go than KDE. (printing for example). But these products need time to be used and evolve from user feedback. They could both be successful and work nicely together.
But everytime I read
I'd rather see these projects grow together than apart.
That no backward compability thing is the BEST and the WORST thing. if we had backward compability, the enhancement would be limited, but ppl wouldn't have to compile the programs every time they upgrade their libraries(anyways, you can keep the old libs too). This way, the develop-thing is at maximum, who cares to compile 35481 applications? (keep the old libs :P)
I use both KDE and GNOME, because I think that both of them are cool, one day I use KDE one day I use GNOME and another day I use just plain and simple wmaker.
I don't like to have the same desktop every day so I change it often.
Use whatever you like and stop bashing what you don't like, I think kde and gnome is cool, but both of them are a little slow on my laptop (p75 with 16mb ram) so I use only wmaker on it.
But for my home computer gnome and kde is great
nuff said.
... but since almost all KDE applications use the KFileDialog class, there is nothing stopping anyone from making a new one ;-)
Actually, I like the one presently in KDE. If you use it often it is quite functional. The toolbar on top allows for quite a few file operations right in the dialog.
mosfet@jorsm.com
Sorry about that. We'll change it to
America vs. Europe
and everyone is happy. Any more bugs?
Tehehe
:-)
That was the funniest thing I've read in a while. Keep up the good work
I keep reading comment saying things like "Well, I looked at KDE but stuck with gnome" and vis-versa. Why do you have to decide between them? Personally, I *love* kfm (It's the single best application in KDE, imo). I also like some of the other KDE applications.
Then there's gnome, which has a whole host of nice applications including the panel, Iagno, ee, gedit, balsa, log viewer and so on.
My solution, I run Enlightenment, with the gnome panel (which has my kde menu on it too) along with
kfm loaded.
You don't have to make a choice, use both.
ashp@hivemind.org
Does anyone know what has been changed/fixed since 1.1pre3? Or if someone can point me to a changelog that would be great.
You may want to take the time to read the QPL.
It provides the same protection.
According to Eric Raymond it is (see quote below).
Quote taken from this URL:
http://www.troll.no/announce/qpl.html
- GPL: totally incompatible with everything
- LGPL: compatible with everything
- BSD: anyone can steal the code
We should not help or hinder proprietary code. As long as nobody tries to make it a required part of a Linux system, people are free to ignore it. Selling proprietary code isn't evil by itself, but turning Open Source into something proprietary (as BSD allows) is totally evil.Clearly the LGPL provides protection without getting in the way of anyone.
Hey asshole, here is my code: procps-990130
KDE must die. Really.
C'mon people...You're just encouraging them...
Thank you,
I like KDE better than CDE.
The Mac theme was fab.
Please don't read into FUD,
I appreciate KDE source =)
Who cares about using free software, if you cannot
use it, because it is so poorly designed.
The GNOME project is/was reactionary. The absolute
worse state of mind in which to start any
project.
All one needs to do is read the GNOME "Manifesto"
to see what is behind it. It is as poorly written
and thought out as GNOME itself (and yes, I have
used the latest version).
That piece on the Red Hat development team posted /. a while back, wherein the Rasterman was
on
interviewed summed it up pretty well.
"Different for the sake of being different."
How puerile.
This is the company that got investments from a
who's who list of blue chip companies?
This is the distribution that people are going to
(unfortunately) consider the "reference" Linux
distribution?
Contrary to Rob "Commander Dickhead" Malda's
/., BTW), Slackware is the reference distribution.
assertion that "no one should use Slackware"
anymore (an assertion I can no longer find on
The Macworld SF conference used Slackware. Mac
people are religious about good design.
Slackware now includes KDE.
Gnome is dead because it is not ready yet!
KDE is evil because Qt almost isn't free!
Man, how tired I get by all these trolls. I just wonder where all those Gnulix-troll have disappeared. I haven't spotted one for months now.
I meant the trolling inflamatory posters. This entire thread is just flame-bait from a troll....
You're posting on Slashdot, which Rob Malda invented and puts much work into, just so you
can insult him? Way to go!
...
/. a while back, wherein the Rasterman was
;)
The GNOME project is/was reactionary. The absolute
worse state of mind in which to start any
project.
All one needs to do is read the GNOME "Manifesto"
to see what is behind it. It is as poorly written
and thought out as GNOME itself (and yes, I have
used the latest version).
That piece on the Red Hat development team posted
on
interviewed summed it up pretty well.
"Different for the sake of being different."
How puerile.
...
Couldn't agree more with you. I won't say that it's the opinion of the gnome developers, but the most extreme gnome people just want to be different from anything else, it does not matter if what theyre trying to differ from are obviously better (the best). This is esp true about ideas and features that originates from winblows. No matter how clever a winblows inovation are, these guys would not touch it simply because it's been done in winblows before. Sometimes you wonder why these guys doesnt despise the whole GUI-idea just because winblows is also a GUI...
Exactly. RH is wasting valuable resources supporting something that was simply disaster from the very start.But, it is their money and they will pay for their mistakes. Interesting times - will see what happens.
Hell, if you think about that for a second most of the time you are right. hehe
And therein lies the problem with GNOME. GNOME/Enlightenment come with a lot of stupid defaults and an ugly look which FORCES one to try to make it all look decent and polished. People scream THEME, THEME, THEME. Sorry, I don't have time to waste to figure out how to fix those toolbar buttons.
Yes there ARE C bindings for Qt. Perl and Python too. THeres also KTK or tcl/tk bindings for KDE.
Now it's really out, the source tarballs anyway... guess that the precompiled bins in all of their different shapes and forms are next...
KDE had perfectly working version 1.0, last
summer. Now they have released 1.1. They
have not, I repeat have *not* from 0.20 to
0.999999999 like GNOME.
Who is inflating the numbers then?
You're absolutly correct. The only useful app in KDE is the CD player, but it sucks. GNOME's cd player rules. At least it's cddb works.
Roberto Alsina did those C bindings in less than a week just to shut up the trolls in comp.os.linux.advocacy. Much good that did him. See the KDE and SWIG sites for how to produce bindings.
It's not a confession it's a fact, AC's never read or reasearch before they post. It's a fascinating phenomenon.
I'm glad he has his facts straight.
Sometimes, he admits that AC posters do read articles, but their opinion usually differs from Ash's.
It amazes me how much of a low life you are. You actually read the news post, clicked on read more, and then clicked on reply and spent about three paragraphs flaming Kats. Ever thought of getting a job?
At least he thinks he, and not the government, should be deciding matters of opinion.
The day I let the government make laws concerning what I should or should not read because of "protection" is the day I move.
Thanks, Ash, for your continued insights and pleasantries!
Ya, why don't you MS engineers get back to work on that Windows 2000 beta instead of flame baiting the Linux community ;)
I think KDE is better because it runs on FreeBSD which is better than Linux and GNOME does not run on FreeBSD so it is worse than KDE.
Maybe, just maybe, you missed the point.
Yeah... I was paid to stir up this "us versus them".. blaha... as if somebody could stop this madness? It's just that simple that the majority of the KDE developers are from Germany, I don't know about GNOME, their probably right about Mexico. The thing is that you've missed the point.
//Lars Mikaelsson, Microsoft employee
Are there any Objective C bindings for QT? I haven't seen any yet. The lack of a free Objective C++ compiler makes this rather difficult (but not impossible). As ObGnome demonstrates, it is trivial to create Objective C bindings for a C toolkit.
Had a problem with my pre2 release... Couldnt get max/min (window show/hiding) animation to turn off. :-(. Did anyone else experience this problem.
I'm not bragging about anything, just making the point that going over it with a very fine tooth comb isn't necessary. I get the basic gist of how both licenses work and since I don't plan on writing any software using either GTK or QT, it honestly don't affect me a whole lot.
It's just a pitty that some people base every software decision in their life solely on the type of license it has... (Not that I care, do whatever thou wilt).
uselinux@email.[nospam].com
If you like the borland C IDE, check out a program called xwpe. Its basically a clone for X.
well actually if I wanted to configure stuff I'd just use the panel menus :)
...
:)
I still think it's easier to move/delete/copy files from the cli. And a I spend a good part of my day in vi or fgrepping.
Having said that I was quite impressed with KDE's fm in version 1.0. I was expect to not be able to use wild cards and was pleasently surprised that I could. I also dig any app that I can single click in stead of double click to move around. This is an anoyance in WindowMaker.
Why would I ever want to double click a dock icon? Why would I ever want to double click a directory in a file manager view?
There are a bunch of things I like a about WindowMaker/KWM/KDE/Gnome. If only it was all coded in fortran I'd help tie them together.
The quick-keys are neat also. Alt-F2 was my favorite.
But what about the versions wich will without a doubt branch of theirs... if they become more popular as theirs they are screwed. They cant release a version of those under their commercial license since they dont own all the GPL'ed patches contributing to them. (QPL removes that problem with clause 3b, the sneaky clause :)
If a Linux desktop uses some particular well working way to present some function to user and Microsoft happens to use something similar, then so what? Good for them.
Why must everything be seen in context of Microsoft?
:-)
> .... /. is still a nice place to visit
>I read "./"
>
Oh sh*t, seems I am a litte bit tried after
coding the entire afternoon/evening.
Anyway
before bed if you remember to use the
"Preview" function.
You all want your beloved linux to annihilate windows so bady. You lust for its demise (please stop me if i'm wrong) and yet it seems you are not willing to part with your reverie, and your malignant GPL. Allow me to bring some facts to your attention. In order for linux to compete with any commercial operating system, you need to attract the corperations responsible for creating the software applications that the CONSUMER depends on and trusts. In order to do that, things need to cost money. Yes that is correct, what a disturbing though hmm? It is true, we are a capitalist, not communist. A coperation who creates the applications that the majorty of consumers adore, will not survive doing it for free and in turn, your cute GPL, and idealiogical ranting are about as attractive as a bullet in their skull. Think about it.
The windows file dialog is designed very well. IT allows you to do many file operations in the dialog, which I personally find very useful. Sometimes when I'm starting a project, and typing up something in word, I create a new folder right in the dialog and save the file in the newly created folder. In addition, the file dialog allows easy navigation through various directories (wheter you type it in or browse from the list) and when you are browsing through files in a dir, you can type the letter a file begins with, and you will be taken to that section. The KDE file dialog implements most of the aforementioned features and goes a step further by adding the directory list on the left, making it easier to browse. It also has a toolbar for common options and is very configurable.
On the other hand, you have the gtk file dialog. Which is without a doubt the worst of the 3 (4 if you count win 3.x) The browsing is a pain in the ass, you can't type in the directory to browse (or if you cant, it isn't as intutive as qt or 9x). The gtk file dialog really needs a *lot* of work.
I switched to windowmaker from kwm shortly after KDE 1.0 was released because I liked windowmakers look more. However the one thing that I really miss from kwm was the alt+f2 mini command line. A lot of times I just want to run some program and I find it much *easier* to hit alt+f2, type in the program name and hit enter, then move my hand away from the keyboard and navigate menus to run the program. To compensate for the lack of amini-command line, I bound tkrunit to alt+f2, however since it itself is a program that needs to be run, it takes a bit longer to come up to the screen, sometimes a little too long (which was never a problem with the built in mini command line in kwm).
Another thing I like about windowmaker are all the neat dock apps that give you a constant feed of info on the vitals of you comp. I wish KDE had more apps that could dock into its panel and give you similiar info. I know gnome has some, but they are extremely buggy and often crash the panel. The one thing I like about gnome is that you can have the minimized app menu in the panel itself, instead of another entity. I think thats a good way to save screen spae and I wish KDE would implement something like that in their own panel ( I know they ahve the menu in th epanel, but thats another click).
*shrug*
I used Window Maker when I ran Linux. I thought GNOME and KDE were clunky, big, and overtly annoying. I've never even liked X much; I like a nice, standardized GUI that I can work in, and an enviroment I can get work done in.
I dont know if its just my PC, but when I run KDE 1.1pre2, each KDE app used up to 5Mb (acording to top). Is this normal? Even for something like the patience game (gotta love freecell!)
What standards? Microsoft internal standards? :) We're obviously not talking about the official C++ standard that was passed this past summer.
And don't even start about speed.
Here's a word of advice to all of you Microsoft Professional Trolls[tm]. These misinformation campaigns would be much more effective if you take the time to establish yourself as a credible source first, and use misinformation that is plausible. That way, you get people to start questioning their beliefs, rather than innoculating against the misinformation.
I can't help you resolve your moral dilemma, however.
Please do a "man top" and read about shared memory. kpanel itself uses less than 1 MB.
Every one of you little people are wrong. Microsoft will crush all you people, laughing at your pathetic little squabbles. Squabbling is nice actually: it almost killed UNIX, and now it's clear this OSS/GPL/APACHE crap will face the same fate.
There's not a damn thing you can do: Bill is going to kick your ass! HAHAHA!!!
I posted the original comment. I looked at your web page and say, yes it looks nice. Just like a Windows desktop. The problem that I have with KDE is that they are focusing too much on the desktop and writing applications for it.
They are focusing on the "Win32" subset. I know GNOME right now is "crappy". However, there are some things that really make GNOME stand out. Integrated CORBA desktop, Session management, etc, etc. These are the things that will make the next desktop stand out. Focusing on the coolness of the environment is what made Linux today what it is. If Linus really cared about compatibility we would have some other operating system. Instead he cared about the OS itself.
But I do agree the fight over widgets is useless!
I ALSO HATE THE FEES for the TrollTech toolkit. If I want to write anything commericial, I must pay them 1500USD per developer. DREAM ON!!!!!
KDE is ok, but not something that is outstanding or has a coolness factor to it...
When you have a good debugger, open source isn't needed.
When you don't have the source, you don't need a debugger, since you aren't going to be able to modify the code in the first place.
Do you actually write software? Ever used a debugger? Thank god I don't use Windows. If this is the level of competence you need to write Windows software with VC, then I feel sorry for those who have to use the software VC programmers produce.
I know that most of the MS trolls think that posting inflamatory junk like this is really getting under our skin. They probably get off just thinking about how much we hate them and how mad we get when we read their nonsense.
I think most of us feel pity, rather than get angry over this stuff. Actually, I laugh my ass off when I read things like this, as its hard to believe that someone could be so clueless. Also, it is fun once in a while to respond to a troll when you think of something real funny to say.
I think trolls can provide a valuable service to the slashdot community; they provide a good laugh. If we all just respond to every troll with humor (I mean, who takes them seriously anyway), then we can all benefit from a good laugh. Maybe we can even start a contest; who can come up with the funniest response to a troll.
God damn, that's a big fat ass.
Windoze lusers are irrelevant to me, it's the GNOME fundamentalists like you that get on my nerves.
Image... is everything.
The kernel/driver api is C, everything else
(well, windowing & interface, at least) is
C++. I assume the other APIs (for multimedia,
etc) would be too.
The help (and even the kpanel labels) are full of SPELLING MISTAKES, and the
GUI ISN'T VERY CONSISTENT from app to app, and
it uses TOO MUCH MEMORY.
Mwuahahaha!
:) since GMC is going nowhere, fast! GMC is prolly the worst part of GNOME right now. The default layout is "screen real estate" hogging (very low pixel/value count), not to mention those butt
I guess your Linux usage is limited to trying out new, even more hideous, pixmap based gtk+ themes the moment they come out. The only passable gtk+ "theme" seems to be the ThinIce theme. Everything else is just an ugly hack. Here's some flamebait:
GMC vs KFM
GNOME folks should just port KFM to gtk+ (GFM
ugly icons and the broken DnD support (Hello!!!! why the fuck are they mimmicking the useless Motif "if drop fails, let's fly back to the drag position")???
Hackers vs Programmers is right!
Give me functional design over hack value design any day...
I hate KDE, not because of all this "not open source"
crap but because its interface is too much like Windows.
BeOS has by far the nicest interface I have ever seen.
I think the people making Linux desktops should look
at copying features from BeOS/OS2/Mac rather than Windows.
But then I think that Linux desktops for J. Random Luser are
a waste of time. I think J. Random Luser should use BeOS, and Linux
should remain a hacker's OS because that's what it's good at.
BeOS is *much* nicer than Linux ever can be for J. Random Luser.
If you have used it you'll know what I mean.
Free sw is not about making it easier to write proprietary shareware.
The library is free for use with software that is GPL, BSD, LGPL, MPL, Artistic, and proprietary.
As RMS has put it, the LGPL is the LESSER GPL, because it doesn't promote free sw enough.
You may not like it, but that's what free software is about.
Free usage in proprietary sw is something highly undesirable, it's accepted at most, but not a prerequisite.
As for your points: You can do all that, the QPL only requires you to mark your changes to the official version as such. This is necessary anyway, to prevent trojans to be smuggled into the code.
TrollTech also explicitly allows CVS, so you can just set up a CVS server, which would be the normal way anyway.
even a little more than the KDE ones..
Yes. This is definitly more freedom in the sense of the users of the code get more freedom ; including the right to not release their modifications of the code.
You don't like Rob's work here? Well, make your own slashdot someplace, jackass. If you can do a better, job, surely, the masses will flock to you. Hell, you don't even need to write the backend... Rob's provided that for free to your sorry trolling ass.
BOredAtWork, founder of the new "I love it when dumbasses knock a free service provided by a student (former), yet keep coming back" club.
I do not have $1200 for the Windows licence, I would prefer to have a compiled version under Windows, for collaborators to use. That's why I am upset. If you noticed, I critised Qt.
As you obviously want to write free software, I might have a suggestion for you.
In one of the KDE mailing lists it was brought up how porting KOffice to Windows would be possible without buying the license.
The suggestion was to try and write the app as portable as possible, and give the code to someone with a QT Pro license (there are several people on the KDE team). This person would just have to recompile the thing for you, which shouldn't be much effort, as your front end won't need to call low-level system functions.
(Maybe the KDE team could appoint somebody who gets a professional license just for that purpose)
Then make suggestions about better consistency and ergonomics on the kde or kde-look lists.
The people are generally very open to suggestions, as they are mostly software designers, not GUI ergonomics experts.
(BTW, I think KDE is still the best you can find on Unix in this respect)
idiot!!!
kde sucks,
i'll switch to openBSD soon just because of lamers, newbies and kde morons like you.....
Yes indeed.. Bartender!, bring me another zealot!
Uhm, focusing on the win32 subset?? I'm afraid you must not know anything about the QT toolkit. This new version supports a whole slew of new Unix features like the QStyle classes which allowed for the above screenshot, Unicode, etc...
KDE has had Session Management months before Gnome was even formed...
KDE (KOffice) also had Corba months before Gnome was formed.
And if you are writing commercial software, you have no sympathies from me. Why should you get freebies when you do not contribute back to the community...
mosfet@jorsm.com
> Allow me to bring some facts to your attention.
> In order for linux to compete with any
> commercial operating system, you need to attract
> the corperations responsible for creating the
> software applications that the CONSUME depends
> on and trusts.
This is true, but is a barrier Linux has already surmounted. Every major database and office productivity suite, with the exception of those by Microsoft, are available on or being ported to Linux.
Similar things are beginning to happen in the games market, where some companies are releasing on multiple platforms, and others have released the source to their games and rely on hobbyists to do the port for them.
The problem is that your view of capitalism does not accurately model to the current state of the software industry. There are at least two vital differences between the software industry and a 'traditional' market:
1. While softare has development costs, its production costs are almost zero (in fact, by relying on consumers to copy the software, the production cost to the developer can be exactly zero). The same problem is currently causing panic in the music industry.
Software developers have tried to force software into a traditional model, by for example selling a registration number to unlock the code, or by tying the software to a CD artifically inflating the value of the CD over its production costs. While these measures may conceal the problem, they do not remove it.
2. Markets function freely when the participating entites are of comparable size (for example, in the case of a village marketplace, entities would have been individuals or families). When the disparity in sizes becomes to great (of which a monopoly is an extreme case), the market ceases to function freely. Thus even the most capitalist states have monopoly laws. (there are numerous other examples - the labor market is one, where large companies deal with individuals, and as a result labor laws are required to prevent exploitation).
And finally of course, many libraries are released under LGPL or other free licenses which unlike the GPL are commercially benign.
Good! go back to windoze you troll!
Is there Ada support yet?
Very nice. Good work.
KDE is a nice idea, but must Linux play "Windows wanna be"? I think not!!!!!
- People send me patches.
- Every week I make a new patch against the previous version of my code.
- Every week I make a new tarball containing plain source code for my new version. (no patches)
- Nobody is discriminated against. The library is free for use with software that is GPL, BSD, LGPL, MPL, Artistic, and proprietary.
AFAIK, only BSD and LGPL code is OK for this. Not even the GPL itself is good enough.The GPL should never be used for libraries.
Libraries should be LGPL, although the BSD
licence is OK too. Maybe the MPL is OK.
I really enjoy using KDE 1.1pre2 from time to time, but occasionally I think it looks hampered by QT's widget set. Any developers have a review of QT2.0 beta that they'd like to post? It sounds like a great step, especially with that scrolling mouse wheel support.
I am compiling pre2 right now, heh. Oh well :)
I don't see any problems with the new QT license. And GNOME just is not ready yet. Once it is, I'll give it a serious try. Until then, I'll stick with KDE.
Besides, Linux with KDE is 1000 times better than Microsh*t Winblows98...
Is it threadsafe? If so, in what manner? Also, how does it handle printing?
Man. This thing is beautiful.
Opinions on the KDE mailing list are out.
I have about 10 serious KDE 1.1pre2 bugs that I was about to report on the
bug report site, that I don't see anyone else having reported, just
lacking the time to put them in. Yes, releasing it now is premature. I
sure hope there will be a 1.1.1 maintenance release soon.
I think that when coolo says that there will be KDE 1.1.x he refers to the fact that the next development versions will be VERY experimental because of the move to QT 2.0 and especially CORBA/KOM. It is a major branch and it might take months to stabilize. Interesting times ahead.
:-) However, more than 100 programs go into this release and some of them may be more complete than others. There will probably be problems on "other Unixes" where the tester base was small.
Nevertheless stability-wise 1.1 is much more stable than 1.0 and more polished. I don't think that there will be a need of a brown paper-bag version
Lotzi B.
I've been working on QT2.0 styles for KDE1.2/QT2.0 and have come up with this so far:
i f f
http://www.jorsm.com/~mosfet/qtnext-highcolor.g
http://www.jorsm.com/~mosfet/qtnext-fileopen.gi
mosfet@jorsm.com
This is shaping up to be a very interesting arms
race. Does anyone have the inside scoop on who
started the move to theme technology? I first
heard of GTK implementing themes, but did QT
have this in the works for some time? (And
please no mentions of: "Yeah my brother's tool
kit did that bad in 1985.")
Obviously QT had the base for different themes
with both their Motif/Windows toggle but my
guess is it was rather hard to implement and
2.0 is a big re-working of that code.
What both GTK and QT need is for data-binding
to ODBC or other data sources? Businesses, the real
pushers behind standards in these areas, need
database applications. I think if Troll
had put some people on database stuff instead
of OpenGL widgets they would have businesses
eating their product up.
Don't use 1.1pre2 !
There are bugs in it (e.g. removing a symlink to a
directory removes the directory itself, recursively !)
And I fixed some other things in kfm.
Please, please, when you can (binary packages are not
available yet), upgrade to the real 1.1
David Faure, faure@kde.org, kfm maintainer
--
--
Just lurking, thanks!
I'm not opposed to ACs in general... people just shouldn't be expected to be taken very seriously if they post as AC.
Oh, and I admittedly haven't made any significant contributions to and major OSS projects. I have however taken advantage of the freedom given to my by using OSS and have modifided serveral apps to better suit me and to fix bugs... one of them was even a KDE app.
The GPL would do good for what Troll Tech wants to do. Granted, important libraries such as GNU libc and the X libraries should be released under a more forgiving licence such as the LGPL, BSD-style, or X-style licence. But the GPL does good for libraries that you don't want proprietary developers to use without getting a special licence. Even Richard Stallman agrees with that (except for the "special licence" part of course).
A GPL'ed library could be used commercially as long as that commercial product was GPL'ed as well. That's good in some ways, but most companies wouldn't want to open up their code, and thus Troll would make considerably less money off it.
The QPL allows them to keep food on their tables, and Open Source people to keep the source open.
If you're really anxious to get it: /pub/kde/Incoming
upload.kde.org,
Or wait a day or so for them to move it to the normal distribution directories.
It would be nice if Troll would GPL Qt, but they cannot. It is how they make money. They are being very generous by changing their license to make it conform to open source, and I thank them for it.
Seeing how Qt looks like Motif and Lesstif looks like Motif ... Hm...
They're doing no harm at all. You're not forced to use it, are you? No, I didn't think so.
No kidding ;) don't ask me, I spend my time playing with a Window Maker desktop ;)
...he's Linus! :) )
(just kidding
It almost sounds reasonable that Linux would have been started in "Visual C" or "Masm" only if you're a complete uneducated fool- which is why so many of us responded along the lines of "LOL ROFL stop! stop! it hurts! ROFL!"
It _is_ worth noting, however, that people without a clue might be conned by this sort of thing, and so it's good to note formally that the very suggestion is beyond ludicrous and in fact impossible. VC++ is not necessarily a more reliable tool- even if it were, which is debatable, it is absolutely certain that Linus used no such thing. Unix C compilers have been around for ages, since before X even... I daresay you could even look up what Linus had back then, it's not at all subject to doubt.
I don't use Gnome at all, as near as I can tell. If I wanted a desktop I'd boot into MacOS... but the times I have used KDE, my personal experience has not been of functionality, work and working software.
My experience was of a thing that tried really hard to be just like Windows, had lots of little behaviors like what you'd get with Windows, but was horribly beset with minor glitches everywhere. Programs would launch a couple times and then be unlaunchable. Windows would freeze up- and KDE actually took pains to make sure I couldn't use PPP config information in nonKDE tools like wmppp, by literally making the important config info (in resolv.conf) _temporary_ and deleting it after use so no other program can use it unless it goes through kppp.
I didn't buy a whole other disk and set up a working, live, genuine Linux installation to put up with crap like that.
Again- I don't use Gnome and have had no real interest in trying to nail a desktop onto the side of X. But, I have used KDE, and in fact have hunted down some of the things it does, and my experience with it has been quite negative in every way. Most notably, I contest the implication that KDE is functionality, good design and working software. There is a lot to it and some of that works, but mostly all it is is Windows design principles hauled up by the roots and replanted in Linux. That's fine, but don't even call it superior design, or working software, or functionality incarnate. It's not, and there is no reason to seriously believe it will ever _fully_ live up to that sort of hype.
It doesn't need to- somebody has to take care of the Microsofties come to Linux and looking for their taskbar and shortcuts. But put a cork in the KDE-uber-alles ranting, OK? You're flat wrong, precisely as wrong as Microsoft itself is when it makes THOSE SAME EXACT ARGUMENTS. And Windows, too, works- sort of. But I don't want to use it, either, and I don't.
He mentioned both license and looks. Your work-around takes care of looks, but not license. Linking something GPLd such as KDE with lesstif is actually legal, while linking KDE with Qt is not.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Very Next-ish. Reminds me of the look and feel of the WindowMaker control center, which, half-assed functionality aside, I really like.
Personally, I think GTK looks like crap (bring on the flames, I don't care) and I can't stand all of those stupid buttons that change color on mouseover. I feel like I'm looking at some "k-rad" Java applet on a badly designed Web page. And GNOME's panel is butt-ugly right now. They need to slim the thing down and do some major ergonomic work.
Really, all of this pissing and moaning and flaming over how widget sets look is useless, and makes the freenix-using community look like a bunch of whiny teenagers. Yes, the QT license issue is a concern, but QT 2.0 will be OSS, and if people don't like the terms of use for KDE, they can use something else. Flwm and dfm together make a very nice (and FAST!) desktop. Bottom line, however, is that KDE is the only desktop I can give to my parents and expect them to use with ease. GNOME is not there yet.
--
--
=8^
--
--
=8^
TedC
PS. Those KDE 1.1 Mac style menubars are cool!
I have never made any references to masturbation on /. or any other online forum. I think you must be confusing me with someone else. I was merely commenting on the lack of substance in a large majority of AC posts -- your's would be a good example.
TedC
The Gnome/KDE flamewars are getting rather.. old. If you like Gnome, use that. If you like KDE, use that. If you don't like either, don't use either one. If your idea of a good time involves baiting people or using massive amounts of four letter words in the description of the one you don't like, get a life.
This is especially important in light of recent release happenings (not just KDE - Linux 2.2.0, for instance). i.e., when complexity is such that indefinite freeze periods occur and the "during testing" pool of testers is limited. I think the Linux kernel strategy of responsively and constantly maintaining the stable tree is excellent.
Before you attempt to discuss the GPL or the philosophies behind it, you should have a look at this document. The moral opposition expressed there is not one against paying for software, it's against proprietary software.
It's against QT's license to distribute it in a modified fashion. To apply one of the concepts it explains to your statement, if you get food from the store, the store no longer has the food when you leave. This doesn't apply to software.
That said, I'm not a KDE basher. I actually use some KDE apps under WindowMaker. And, I contribute code to and maintain free software, so
Acutally, the GPL would -NOT- prevent commercial use of the free library. Quite the opposite. The GPL covers programmer's freedoms, not the price tag.
(It's about Free Speech, NOT Free Beer.) Hence it would be perfectly possible and legitamate to sell GPLed software, PROVIDED the freedoms implicit in the licence are included.
This means that the GPL CANNOT be used to inhibit the commerical selling of a product.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Then you'd get GCC/egcs for Windows, port Qt, and compile your package.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Every time I install a new version (because there is this new program I want to try out that need this new version), some of my other programs breaks.
(a) Development libraries don't maintain backwards compatability.
(b) If your programs are breaking, I'm afraid it's your own fault..multiple versions of GTK+ can live side-by-side quite peacably. (I have 1.0.6, 1.1.5, 1.1.6, 1.1.7, 1.1.8, 1.1.9, 1.1.10, 1.1.11, 1.1.13, and 1.1.14 installed) And all I did was "./autogen.sh && make && make install". (for the ones that weren't installed by my package manager).
Clues are a recommended accessory when using development software.
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
I use linux since about 1.1.59, and wouldn't drop
KDE for a fvwm setup unless someone pointed a gun to my head.
1) The STL doesn't define a string class.
Some STL implementations have one, but it is not a standard.
2) STL containers can be used trivially with Qt.
4) I have interfaced C++ libraries to Qt with no
problem whatsoever (the mime++ class, specifically)
5) Qt's QString class can now do unicode. How do you do that with the non-standard STL string?
I wrote one, so it must exist.
And before anyone says otherwise: it was a semi-trivial task. 90% of the work was done automatically by a tiny python script.
And no phony vtables were used, either.
-----------
1)The STL doesn't define a string class. Some STL implementations have one, but it isnot a standard.
--
I think that you are mistaken, see the now accepted standard on strings. The standard
most definately provides a string class and Qts is not to my knowledge complient.
-----------
The URL you provide contains a description for a string class. Yet it never says it complies to
any standards.
That description is part of a "working paper" dated december 1996.
Yet, on my copy of egcs, which is dated in 1998, I see: "NOTE : This does NOT conform to the draft standard and is likely to change" on it's string header.
Can you shed any light?
--------------
2)STL containers can be used trivially with Qt.
I assume that you are only attempting trivial things with them then. Last time I read the
Qt documentation, it did not provide a direct translation from types such as vector to
their Array and such. Without such you will with suffer a penalty of having to convert
types if you mix containers from Qt and STL. Although I admit I am hardly a Qt
expert. If you are wrong, please send code.
------------
Why mix them? If you want to use STL comtainers,
use them. If you want to use Qt containers, use them. I see no contradiction between what I said and what you said, except for your trivial slam at my usage of STL.
I must have deleted 3), sorry.
------------
I have no knowledge of the mime++ class, so I won't comment.
------------
You claimed interfacing Qt with other libraries was a problem. Can you give an example? A reason?
------------
(about using wchar to do STL strings do unicode)
------------
That is not really a solution. Or rather, it's a clunky, ugly, slow solution.
Well, I agree with you licensing-wise. However, it's worth trying things out to see why people like them. I hope the Gnome people and the KDE people at the very least use the competition for some time on their own desktops: cross-fertilisation is good. I'm actually waiting for GnuStep 0.6.0 due out later this month. Hopefully it'll be usable.
If you want to see how a real file dialog is done, take a look at X-file for OS/2.
SplitVT fixes that, anything else?
Saying "GPL should 'never' should be used for libraries" isn't a very accurate statement. LGPL -is- GPL with some exceptions for proprietary software linking.
However, Troll releasing GPL would infact be closer to what they're doing, and drive free software even harrder, but not allowing proprietary software to be compiled for KDE...
However, LGPL would - for the time being - be more desirble, to attract proprietary authors to GPL software. In the future, of course, all software should be GPL.
This brings up an interesting issue. OSS has been a great move for free software, making a definitive difference. Your point however, is a good one: let's not loose sight of GPL. OSS is good, [L]GPL is better. Distributing software between licenses isn't legal unless they have the same license, or a BSD license.
That's why an LGPL library, like gtk+ is still more desirable than regular OSS - you can use the code in your own free projects. QPT'd code won't be very useful to anyone. Troll Tech needs to GPL Qt, since it would play such an integral part the system.
A good rule of thumb, IMO, is to allow programs/applications/libraries to be OSS, so long as they aren't integral to the system. If they are, GPL/LGPL should be required.
Um, if i remember correctly, a LOT of GNOME is written by mexican coders.. yeah a lot of americans contribute, but the gut of it is Mexican! (I'm waiting for the taco module )
I really don't like the Motif look at all. Bleah. HP uses for everything in the HP-UX tools, and I think they've created the ugliest desktop (maybe 'cept for OpenLook) ever.
I haven't decided between GNOME & KDE yet for looks, but let me make clear I respect the people who do both. I think Troll has been very reasonable meeting people's problems with the way Qt is liscensed.
Eventually I'll prolly install both. I'll run whichever panel I eventually decide on, but I'll use apps from both. I can't live w/o KLyx, Iagno (Ian is renaming Gnothello) and Gnibbles (XNibbles gtk-ified).
Well, there are visual debuggers (ddd, xxgdb) ... debugger" causes me to want to
which are actually pretty good but your statement
"gcc has no
ask "How much time have you actually spent using
gdb?". Gdb is actually very nice and very powerful - it (believe it or not) has some features not found in any other debugger. I have
used the visual c++ debugger and it is very good
but I have never in my life found a piece of code
I couldn't debug using whatever tools were available and frankly I've found that the biggest
proponents of the visual c++ debugger were people
who were didn't really want to do the work of thinking through the problem - they just wanted to
point their magic gui at it and have the problem
go away. The biggest impediment to debugging is
deciding that one will actually do the possibly
hard work that is required to mentally understand
the problem and step through it to solve it. In
summary if you haven't actually spent any time
using gdb, reading its manual, learning what it
can do you have no basis for criticizing it - though it is not inherently visual it really is quite good, I encourage you to actually try it before making disparaging remarks about its capabilities.
there are two kinds of people in this world - those who divide people into two groups and those who don't
I have used the visual c++ debugger and it is very good but I have never in my life found a piece of code I couldn't debug using whatever tools were available and frankly I've found that the biggest proponents of the visual c++ debugger were people who were didn't really want to do the work of thinking through the problem - they just wanted to point their magic gui at it and have the problem go away. The biggest impediment to debugging is deciding that one will actually do the possibly hard work that is required to mentally understand the problem and step through it to solve it.
In summary if you haven't actually spent any time using gdb, reading its manual, learning what it can do you have no basis for criticizing it - though it is not inherently visual it really is quite good, I encourage you to actually try it before making disparaging remarks about its capabilities.
there are two kinds of people in this world - those who divide people into two groups and those who don't
I suppose everyone is entitled to their opinion
but I have to tell you after seeing years of
typical x apps and lots of gnome/gtk stuff I was
pretty well blown away by kde. I have to wonder
if some of this ranting is based upon religious
rather than pragmatic reasons. I mean have you
ever actually run kde? Though probably 8 of the
12 platforms I have actually written commercial
code for were unix variants I was always saddened
by the relatively amateurish look of most of the
x-based apps - netscape being one of the exceptions. I'm using kde now and you know what?
Netscape is the least-spiffy looking thing on
my desktop.
there are two kinds of people in this world - those who divide people into two groups and those who don't
they could make money with a better license.
__
Scott Draves
But neither of your arguments have anything to do with gtk--. Those are functions of gtk+ and not of the wrapper on top.
There is nothing inherently a kludge in writting OO code in C and then wrapping it in C++. No one has ever cited a document showing that all wrappers must be bad. As gtk+ already has an excellent OO design very little changes were needed to make a good wrapper. Besides both Qt and Gtk-- wrap the OO X code in C so the point is mute. Both are wrappers of some sort.
--Karl
Gtk-- Contributor
But this is beside the point as we are to be comparing a C++ toolkit with another C++ toolkit. Gtk-- interfaces to C++ completely including STL defined methods. Qt on the other hand, implements its own set of list, strings, and containers that are not nearly as well as the STL ones. Further, gtk-- works within the C++ defined framework to construct its signal system instead of building in with MOC a meta compiler. So honestly, gtk-- is more C++ than Qt. It you want to interface a C++ library to Qt, you will have even more cost that we do interfacing to C.
If you honestly looked at gtk--, you would find it is a very clean toolkit class set. You can derive widget freely without worrying about the gtk+ internals, so what is your beef? And with our signal frame, your application will still be portable without a meta compiler.
You will also discover that the extra layer accounts for all of one extra function call in 90% of the cases. This is hardly a huge overhead. If you read through the fine book More Effective C++, you will discover that C++ implementation of its own internal mechanisms is far higher than this.
Both the printing needs and the gdk interface are properties of gtk and not just gtk--, so saying gtk-- sucks because you don't like the underlying gtk+ is being overly specific. It is like saying that you hate all Taurases when you mean you hate all Fords.
I understand that we don't have the interfaces you require, but that functionality is the domain of gnome, not gtk. If you think the documentation is bad feel free to contribute some more usable docs. We welcome participation in our project.
--Karl
I don't understand how you can think that we have some inherent restriction on our code. Yes providing a good wrapper is more difficult than writting from scratch, but we are not forcing you to work at the C level. We have taken the time and effort to completely cover it all. Any places that you must go and access the C understructures is a place we need to cover better, and we are happy to learn about such places, so we can repair them.
If your advisors AI system was interfacable from C++ and you could not tell the difference from the interface or running it, than what difference did it really make. You are assuming that all wrappers must be bad and therefore gtk-- is bad. With that assumption, you could not possible accept that we have created a C++ library from a C framework.
From the technical stand point, we did not just wrap the C gtk+ and call it good. (That was the gtk-- of about 9 months ago, it really did sucked.)
Currently, our code:
- takes over the gtk signal system
- provides C++ equivelent mechanisms for parts that we found restrictive.
- provides STL compatible access to the gtk structures.
- takes over the callback system and transforms it to virtual functions.
Following the next release, it will:- take over the memory management of the gtk-- structures that are linked to gtk+.
- seperate into interface and utility functions.
- increase the strength of our signal/slot mechanism far beyond that of Qt.
- provide a translating mechanism that will transparently promote all C structures to C++ structures when accessed.
Perhaps at that time you will reevaluate our design. Til then happy coding.--Karl
If at some time later gtk-- becomes wildly popular and C falls out of use, we can always port the gtk code directly to C++. However, as I am sure you will agree C++, has some diffiences that need too be addressed. Given the controversy, shouldn't we just wait for D.
Good talking with you.
--Karl
Currently Gtk-- provides
- A good signal system comparable with Qt.
- C++ mechanisms to the gtk+ toolkit.
- C++ access to gnome widgets.
- A lowlevel interface to X drawing primatives.
We have been making vast improvements in the documentation and the code readablity in the last two weeks. And we are preparing for a stable release to correspond with Gtk+ 1.2.Is there something more you desire, or is there some feature that we are missing that we should add? We would really like to know before we realease 1.0. Also when was the last time you looked over the interface?
--Karl
Gtk-- Contributor
How do you compile Linux with Visual C? This I would like to see. Actually, GCC existed long before Linux and was used from the start.
From my understanding, GNOME and KDE can compliment each other, and aren't really competitors.
At least, that's how I seem to understand it.
-- We live in a world where lemonade is artificial and soap has real lemon.
For crying out loud lets end this myth that KDE is a memory hog.
>man top
Learn how to read the damn thing.
Compared to KDE 1.0, KDE 1.1 is miserly!
If you want, you can use the X version of Qt with an X server on Windows. Clunky, but it works.
As for GTK--, it's not the only C++ wrapper for GTK; check out wxWindows, which wraps GTK, Win32 and others in a single class library.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Database access in an X toolkit? Yuck!
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
KDE is Kool, GNOME is Cool - I like competition :)
Andrew
Yes, but it would deprive themselves from any benefits since they couldn't include patches into their commercial version (and after all, that's what commercial OpenSource licencing is all about).
A GPLed FreeQt would force an irreversible fork because the GPL is by far more restrictive than the QPL: Once you're in there, there's no way out again, while the QPL allows free contributions to remain free (you don't have to hand over your copyright, source has to remain open, etc.) but in addition to that allows commercial relicencing, which is essential if we want Linux to become the mainstream desktop OS.
I have not tried any recent GNOME offerings, but I did install KDE 1.1pre2. I only have 32MB of RAM and 18MB of swap. Yes, I know, my fault for setting it up wrong so long ago. Linux needs something like HPUX's logical volume manager so I can just add to the swap.
Anyway, I run KDE, start up Netscape, Gimp and two of those Kvt terminals. Those stupid terminals take up 4MB of RAM. What the hell?! Well, as you might guess, my system starts swapping like there is no tomorrow. It becomes completely useless and I have to hit the reset button :(. Well, after that experience it was back to FVWM for me! I appreciate a window manager that starts up in about 5 seconds ;)
I don't know what you're talking about wrt KDE's stability. I've been running it since Beta1, and now have gotten up to 1.1pre2, and will be downloading v1.1 tonight. In this time (over a year now) I have seen not only it's feature list, but it's stability grow with every release. I can personally attest to the service it has provided me. I've been through at least fifteen different window managers, WindowMaker being my favorite. I've even tried to compile the last couple (two, maybe three) point release of gnome, and it has never worked. KDE has compiled and installed out of the box every time, and as run with no problems. Political viewpoints aside, KDE provides so much more to the end user, with so much less of a hassle. I have to upgrade so much stuff before I can even hope to run the new gnome point release it's not even funny. And I have a RedHat 5.0 system, an install that's not even six months old. Tell me somewthing isn't wrong with this picture.
That said, I cheer on the KDE folks whenever I can. I have nothing against gnome, other than the fact that it requires about a billion times more _Stuff_ (libraries/etc) to run and has never completed a compile on my machine. I wish their project well, but KDE is here today.
You may make fun of Microsoft's "Where do you want to go today?" campaign, but in the long run that's all that really matters. We have a working solution today with KDE, so why not take advantage of that? If gnome ends up being somehow superior, I am quite sure it will take it's place above KDE - but that day isn't today.
The copper bosses killed you, Joe. 'I never died', said he.
I've been using a recent snapshot for a while and it's extremely stable. I've only used a fraction of the available KDE applications and they've been working great too. KFM has yet to crash on me (and I've used it to browse slashdot too) so no complaints here. In fact, I like 1.1 so much that I've made it my main desktop and WM whereas before I was still using Fvwm and FvwmModules and the occasional KDE app.
So although I hear there are some bugs that went out in 1.1, it should actually be pretty stable and 1.1.1 has already been confirmed anyway.
>Personally, I think GTK looks like crap [snip]...
>and I can't stand all of those stupid buttons
>[snip]... And GNOME's panel is butt-ugly [snip]
>Really, all of this pissing and moaning and
>flaming over how widget sets look is useless...
Oh really? You're sure doing enough of it, asshole.
"UNIX" is never having to say you're sorry.
As many of you here know, my company uses both GNOME and KDE on desktops. Both have their unique featuresets. We do alot of development in Ada95 on Linux building very robust GUI apps. Because GNOME has Ada bindings that are very workable, GNOME is a no brainer. The GNAT compiler works on Solaris, HP-UX, SCO etc. and is not just Linux centeric.
Has anybody actually run any tests comparing the latest incarnations of VC, EGCS, and PGCC? That would be interesting to see..
Also, on the original issue: I actually do think that having a more or less stable and *documented* library such as QT helps. The docs for GTK are unfortunately sketchy at this stage.
Just my $2E-10 worth...
Marciano
Why preannounce it, just like LinuxToday?
It's true that it'll be put on ftp.kde.org very soon, but only the directory structure is present!! Nothing's there now!
Everything is still under the unstable branch. Period.
Maddog
And people like you who seem to hide behind AC just to bitch and moan everytime people aren't jizzing their pants over Linux need to get a life. 'Nuff said.
The revolution will be mocked
And you're someone I'd want to associate Linux with, because you and people like you give me a damn good excuse to bash Linux.
The revolution will be mocked
You must have missed that ;-)
Who said he was alluding to a monitor?
The revolution will be mocked
Ada is a language. The Ada compiler (that I know of) that is supported by egcs, Gnat, works primarily with Linux, and a few other comercial Unicies. Chances are if you're as Linux-centric as Gnome, you'll have Ada bindings, otherwise I doubt it.
The revolution will be mocked
Yeah you must speak the gospel truth, with out a doubt *nod*. Hey I've got one, if you're not a complete zealot, like moderation, functionality over flash, use KDE.
The revolution will be mocked
That's such a load of shit. If what you're spewing is really worth saying, wait until you're home from work. If you don't have a computer or inet access at home, go to a public library. There's no reason to be an AC, esp. because you're not required to give out your true email address to all of /.. Get a life.
The revolution will be mocked
So start work from the C bindings that Roberto made if you're so hell bent on a C toolkit. Why not have a punch card toolkit?
The revolution will be mocked
Yeah and the nice jump from 0.33 to 0.90 with no coresponding jump in stability.
The revolution will be mocked
Well, that said, I really don't agree with you there. Think about it, how is TT going to support Qt if there's a bunch of different modified versions out there. Look at the Linux kernel, each distro has its own kernel pretty much. That's fine because there are rather large companies supporting them, but TT are the only people supporting Qt right now, and such high level projects tend to attract more script kiddies, meaning I seriously doubt that one big company would take over the support... and TT's "support" is bad enough as-is.
That said, I use Gimp, wmaker so there.
The revolution will be mocked
Uhh no. A quick check on the master site reveals a Linux binary (for libc5 and one for libc6), a singular binary for Sparc Solaris 2.5.1 (at least two Solaris versions behind..), one for an old version of HP-UX, one for an old version of Irix, DU, and an old version of Solaris x86. Either way, it's somewhat encompasing, but as I said, it supports one free Unixish OS, and some outdated comercial ones. Not good enough. As for the non Unix OSes, I'm not really concerned with those :}
The revolution will be mocked
Oh back that up please. Your unfounded comments are on par with the average /. reader.
The revolution will be mocked
Now I'm curious, what if any documentation on Qt themeability is there? That would make porting to Qt 2.0 so much more fun :}
- alex
The revolution will be mocked
Each distribution pretty much tweaks the kernel config to their own needs. So each distro ships with a different set of drivers compiled in. Espero que entiendas (I think that's what I meant to say).
Debian provides support, no? And yes I remember Debian for that extremist Bruce? Perens? What a good reason not to use Linux.
The revolution will be mocked
Solaris 2.6 and 2.5.1 are oldish for instance. Sure Sun is good at supporting them, but they're still old, and 2.5.1 is just awful. I don't know much about HP-UX versioning but I saw binaries for only one version (10.20), which IIRC is not the most current. Sure there may be quite an installed base of poeple with Solaris 2.5.1, but the sheer fact that there aren't binaries for more OSes (or versions thereof) proves my point. Ada is a lesser used language, it doesn't run everywhere, it won't run on my FreeBSD box, etc. I'm sure Ada bindings for KDE/Qt would be a great asset, but seeing as KDE doesn't focus on one OS or one version of an OS, I don't think that Ada bindings will happen as soon as they did for Gtk+ which is very tied in to Linux and Linux only.
The revolution will be mocked
Uh no. Gnome runs on FreeBSD, but you've got to use the ports. KDE runs well on FreeBSD, but you generally should stay away from the KDE and Qt ports IMO.
What really shows why I don't like Gnome is its configure stuff. It's really bastardized the autoconf mess. If you want to run code out of Gnome's CVS tree, chances are it won't run on FreeBSD (or run period..) without a lot of tweaking. KDE tends to be easier to get up and running from the CVS tree.
The revolution will be mocked
Tacos son comidas americanas. Por favor piensa antes de hablar.
(See how dangerous High School Spanish classes are?)
The revolution will be mocked
I don't know about the various Gnome apps.. I think GNUmeric reads/writes Execl files.. I know the KOffice programs all use XML.
The revolution will be mocked
Uh no. KDE 1.2 has been shipped with a few known bugs. Me.. I don't like this policy of meet the deadline rather than meet quality standards. But some of the powers-that-be just couldn't wait. Not much can be done about that. And yes I hope 1.1.1 is shipped soon.
The revolution will be mocked
You obviously haven't looked at it yourself, otherwise you wouldn't make such factless stupid comments. There are bindings for C, Perl, Python and perhaps Tk for KDE.
And you're obviously not sorry to say what you've said. So stop saying you're sorry.. in the words of a wise person I once knew.. you're cheapening the words [dumbass].
I'm sure if there was a demand for Ada bindings, people would make them. Hell I'd volunter to make them, but it means I would have to ditch FreeBSD, something I'm not willing to do (well that and I'd have to learn Ada..).
The revolution will be mocked
..just installed 1.1pre2....
oh well,
will wait for the qt-2.0 based one now...
(scrolling wheel my baby.. love it)
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
..I write a free software using QT. SOmething really useful. How can people, who use Windows benefit from it? QT is not free for Windows - so Troll is screwing people out of free software; while GTK is going to be ported and free to use. Such a shame gtk-- is such peace of crap.
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
Are you leaving on other planet? People have to had there work done, and the platform they use for that is not usually there choice. I have to use NT often; I really fucked our computer support to allow to get a Linux box on network. Be real and get you head out of your butt. gees.
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
Just take a look, for example
at this
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
..by the license. It says X Windows system only. Why a distinction? I understand having to pay for commercial development.
You see, they effectively killed the Harmony project, which would have allowed for cross platform development, if under GPL and if ported. Now nobody will ever write a good toolkit, that can be made cross-platform. Bastards.
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
...would you like to bind C++ to C? I thought the progress was moving in a direction from procedural to object-oriented programming.
What C++ lacks that C has? (asctually, IMO, that's the probel with C++, but tastes aside).
Compilers for some DSP? Are you using a window toolkit on a DSP?
Graphical tookit have to be object oriented, sorry, that's the only sane way to include asyncronyous, random user generated events.
Of course it does not mean you have to use an OO language,- hell, you can find a way to code it in assembler,- but that (OO) surely does help.
In any case, for anything resembling a good UI you will have to expand the toolkit, to match your needs and to create your own compund objects. It is to be done in the same language the toolkit is written in. And that's better be an OO language if you value your time. Just inherit from widgets you like, and create what you need and give it to other people to use. I do not even use a single default Component in Java or Widget in qt, only my own library, that does what I need. And you can use it too. What a pain in the ass to try to use C for such coding.
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
..would you create a compound widget with a clean interface for future reuse in C? With a procedural language you are limited (bound, if you wish) to a toolkit, which is very limiting. What if you want a Plot widget? A systemStatusMonitor widget that includes a plot widget? Now change it to a different type of plot.. so on. How would you use exeption handling? You just have to implemnt all OO functionality crawling on your knees. Ouch. :)
I agree C++ is not the best. Personally, I am waiting for a good native before time compiler for Java (hello Cygnus
So you propose to put development effort into crappy hack of a toolkit, just because someone doesn't want to learn C++? What a waste of time.
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
GTK+ is fine. I looked at it. If you just use what is there. But I need custom widgets. That behave like an object. Making it happen in C is a pain. It is not an OO language. Yes, I can write a wrapper, but why not just to start from a good approach?
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
comparing C++ and C speed under EGCS
was this
Seems you are wrong..
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
Well I first wrote my analysis code in C. Then got a clue, and reused it as methods for C++ classes. No performance change - well if one spends hours inside a single method, why should there be any. But a better structure of the project allowed me to save days of debugging, allow for much better future reuse of the code etc. etc. Then I found a better way to arrange the process - it halfed execution time. I would have never discovered this clever way of organising things without proper OO code organization. OOP was not invented out os the blue - it IS more productive.
Point is - if you do not worry about organising your code, you can concentrate on real performance issue, which is not the virtual pointers, but the general way you do things.
As far as UI toolkit goes - OO is mandatory.
If you want - you can implement it in assembler. It just will be pain to reuse and build upon.
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
Is there a problem to make bindings from C++?
There is already C binding for QT, AFAIK.
And just how would you create your custom, derived widgets. If you are happy with a limited number of premade objects, then OK. But that is not an efficient approach.
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
The fact that Troll Tech is being generous is not a sufficient argument to get me to rely on Qt.
i give a damn about your idealogical problems. Don't listen to that corperate zombie.
Putting food on the tables of a couple programmers and bisuness executives is costing thousands... hey, maybe they should think of the good of the people instead of thier own selfish goals... if they wanted to make at least somewhat honest money they shouldn't of made a proprietary library to be used on a free system. The only reason they freed it as much as they did is cause they knew the linux community would eventually go to a free system like gnome, as they have historically gone to free software over competing proprietary software.
you're talking about the 1.1.x series, right? That's a development series bud. I personally have not seen any older programs affected by installing new gtk+ libs and i do use most of the cutting edge gtk+ stuff and compile almost none of the stuff myself. They say they'll have the backwards compatability stuff fixed by 1.2. But what does it matter anyway? libc6 aint backwards compatable with libc5, it's a very common practice among libraries which makes it so newer programs don't need to load all that backwards compatable crap in it.
Your arguments are not only totally empty and without proof, but it is quite obvious you have no idea what your talking about. Not about solid foundations, or about the Free Software philosiphy. You're wasting bandwidth, dude.
one of the reasons that Unix is better that windows is that it's mostly component based. You say GCC has no IDE or debugger, but you only have to look to another package to find it. Try Emacs or X EMacs for a time-tested IDE without all that useless "visual" crap. GDB is a debugger with a lot of good front ends like the Data Display Debugger. If you're using GTK+, you could used Glade.
DDD is just a debuger, not an IDE. Emacs and X Emacs are IDEs. I haven't used a MS IDE since QuickBASIC 4.5, and a couple days ago i was playing with VB 5.0 on a MS computer, but i find it hard to believe that one of thier crappy "visual" IDEs could beat Emacs for anything but the learning curve and useless glitter. And GCC looses a lot for portability. It must go through a couple intermediate phases for portability (and to have MANY language front ends, which rules), and that makes it suck for compile time. And because it can compile for many machines, it isn't much optimized for any particular one. Unless you use PGCC, which optimizes for Pentiums. That will give you a 10-30% speed improvement.
Speed: try PGCC, which gives a 10-30% speed improvement for Pentiums. And i know how this may sound, but GCC really is its own standard. The source is opened, so that whole monopoly thing doesn't apply. And it does run under almost every modern platform. Inotherwords, there's i personally have NEVER found a reason to try to get code tested with GCC to work with another compiler.
Ports to Win32 usually are done in VC because GCC was made for Unices and the Win32 ports are kind of clunky. And he probably has do use VC at work because his boss is a bisunessman and not a programmer (ie he don't know what he's talking about)
I thought I remember using Linux 0.96 as one of my first versions. Your hypo that Linux went from 0.12 to 0.99 would rule that out. And I though Alan Cox said that he user 0.95 at one point in his interview /. reported on.
May be I'm the ass that doesn't know what he's talking about???
While I agree that the whole who is using which desktop is really childish, some people like GUIs. And if *nix is ever to become a mainstream consumer OS, it needs a good, consistent, GUI. As for the Gnome vs. KDE issue, I personally think that it's good that we have both. Monopolies in any sense are bad. This way we have competition.
-matt
Wow you are dumb. gdb isn't a debugger? That's funny, i've been using it for years to debug my programs compiled w/ gcc. As for a development environment, gcc doesn't come w/ one but many are available. The makers of gcc didn't feel the need to force us to use what they thought a good IDE would be. And gcc does infact pre-date VC. I also don't see how a good debugger lets you not need the source to a program. Unless you can debug the assembly code. Think before you speak.
-matt
Then again, wasn't linux at 0.99.xxx for almost 2 years or something like that? I might be wrong though, I didn't get into linux until 1.2.8
-matt
Putting a screen saver as your wallpaper is hardly an original idea to GNOME. It's really just a feature of xscreensaver. IIRC you just run the screen saver name with the argument "-inroot" or something of that sort. FVWM-2 would do this for you automatically if you wished. I used to run fvwm2 w/ rock as my wallpaper, really trippy effect.
-matt
Putting a screen saver as your wallpaper is hardly an original idea to GNOME. It's really just a feature of xscreensaver. IIRC you just run the screen saver name with the argument "-inroot" or something of that sort. FVWM-2 would do this for you automatically if you wished. I used to run fvwm2 w/ rock as my wallpaper, really trippy effect. Also, the gnome panel really is based on KDE's panel. I know i'll take some heat from the GNOME zealots for that comment, but KDE had a panel before GNOME existed.
-matt
It was less stable, but a lot more functional.
Supported window managers, desktop icons, themes, more junk in the control-center, taskbar....
I know I will be moderated down for this, but . . . Vincent
"Different for the sake of being different."
Thats about some guy wearing funny clothes. So what? The only thing you need of his to run gnome is esound. You can use WindowMaker, or better yet icewm for the window manager.
Anyway, Gnome uses lots of ideas from other desktop envirements, like the pager, Baboon (modeled after OLE2), a panel like KDE's, and a defualt look and feel for apps that makes them look a lot like windows. How about some examples of "Different for the sake of being different" in gnome.
I know I will be moderated down for this, but . . . Vincent
Great... KDE 1.1 is out... Now what? Also, what about QT 2.0, and the QPL?? (I still think Troll should GPL QT.)
Full of spelling mistakes? Like incosistent?
...Nothing interesting here. Just move along...
GNOME is not close to ready for a stable, consummer release. I've been using gnome for a while now, and I very much like the direction it is going, but it's still very buggy. Very buggy. Given some time to mature, I think it will be an excellent desktop environment, but until then...
Celebrate the finer things in life
Did M$ VC++, or even MASM _exist_ when Linux was created? VC++ _did not_.
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
I've never touched QT and/or KDE as a programmer, but have done some small things under GTK. WOuld it be possible to write a cross-library; so that QT apps would be compilable with GTK, and GTK-apps with QT? Just a simple header file and some small "conversion" functions in a library? Or are they too different? To create that, would be really cool; there are many good QT and GTK apps out there, and, at least I prefere the _choice_of_the_user_, which is the dfference between Linux and Windoze. Windows enforces us to want things like MS wants... Not as we wanted originally...
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
I'm aware of that great work. But it's not what I thought of; I thought of a wrapper, which lets you use eg. QT API calls, while using GTK, and vice versa, letting you comple current QT apps under GTK, and current GTK apps under QT. What I wonder is if this is possible, or if the two architectures are too different?
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
I think the most important thing for a compiler is that it compiles things well. GCC far better than VC, you fool. Why do you think quake was programmed in it? I'll admit it probably wasn't for the ease of use ;)
LOL!
I came here to ask for help understanding the kde ftp site structure. Now I understand why I was confused. I am new to Linux and never used KDE before, but the kde web site looked intruiging. I guess my opinion is that it's bad marketing to announce something new with fanfare before your ordinary KDE newbie could get his hands on it. It all adds up to lost opportunity for new converts.
I still want to give KDE a try, but could someone point me to a nice HOWTO (get started) with this thing?
The real question is why is 1.1 already here?
Sure integration and consistent look-and-feel is nice, but at the sake of speed and efficiency?
I use the Blackbox window manager and have carefully picked tools for each job. Some are GTK based, most are console based. I have just what I need, and without the bloat and slowness of KDE (yes, I tried it).
I can't speak for GNOME, as I have not tried it yet, but KDE is obviously for recent Windows-to-Linux converts. I would much rather have a few customizable, powerful tools (BitchX, Emacs, GIMP) than a load of so-so apps that just look like each other.
We see the same thing in Netscape Communicator 4.5 -- a collection of programs that look like each other, but are slow and buggy. A better setup? Mozilla 5, Emacs/Vim/whatever for HTML, , . No, they won't all look the same, but they will be crafted tightly and efficiently for each individual task.
No, I'm not an "old school" programmer or anything. I'm 19 and am a relatively recent Linux convert (5 months ago?). I think the ideal of small, custom tools for each task is MUCH better than a big, slow suite of apps that happen to look great together. What about drag and drop and interoperability you say? What about it? It's not here yet, and frankly, I get by great without that "feature."
[ Aaron Shaver ] [ ultravoid@usa.net ]
Aaron J. Shaver - aaronshaver@yahoo.com "Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do." --Bertrand Russel
While there is plenty of fundamentalism here on /., you needn't pick on Islam as a whacky (sic) religion. There are plenty of fundamental Christians, Jews, Hindus, and even Buddhists that are certifably "whacky" also. Please leave Muslims out of this.
A bit more on topic, I like GNOME because of its purported ORB-based architecture. I would expect it to take a while longer to mature, but it should be really spiff. KDE looks nice. I wonder if its architecture is as sophisticated.
Jason Dufair
"Those who know don't have the words to tell
Jason Dufair
"Those who know don't have the words to tell
and the ones with the words don't know too w
GNOME and all its apps compiled on my OpenBSD box fairly easily. KDE core and libs compiled, but kvirc simply refuses. Since that's the only KDE app I've found so far that I prefer over the alternatives, I can free up some diskspace by nuking KDE.
This is almost as funny as the guy who started a flamewar on the kernel mailing list by suggesting that "we" rewrite the kernel in C++ so it would be faster, smaller, and bugfree.
Motif is worst possible alternative. It is sluggish. It is memory consuming. It is feature free; it lacks support for more complex widgets. Sure 2.0 has some support (little), but nobody uses that and lesstif implements 1.2. It is also butt ugly (if my desktop looked like that I would use it with the screen saver on). On the top of it all it take much time and patience to make stable programs with it.
BTW. Have you ever tried to use a multi-column list in Motif. There doesn't exist one, and it was hell on earth to emulate one.
I can understand why they started the lesstif project, many open source would not compile without it. Luckily this is not that large a problem anymore (I only use DDD).
Where is the .tar.gz files? e
Not in pub/kde/stable/1.1/distribution/tar/generic/sourc
atleast