Slashdot Mirror
QPL 1.0 Released
Idris Samawi writes "QPL 1.0 Released
The new license for the Qt Free
Edition just announced by Troll Tech". The
release includes a few quotes, but a dearth of information about the actual license. I'm curious though. Two
free desktops are an amazing feat!
What do you mean a "dirth of information about the license" The link to the actual license is included on their press release.
Coincidental that it just followed the release of gnome 1.0?
Patrick
This makes me happy. But I still haven't been able to compile the 2.0 beta. Oh well that's what the weekend is for.
now, i surely hope not again 1000+ posts again,
gnome 1.0 posts is already *ugly*
can anyone example what the different between 0.9 and 1.0 of QPL ?
KDE is on the run. They are already trying to copy GNOME by putting CORBA in KOffice.
Can I take the QT code, fork the tree, make some changes and call it GnuT and start redistributing it?
it's illegal to distribute binaries of KDE linked against Qt if you're not the original developer
make me wonder how many portions of kde code is original and not from others. can someone clarify ?
Now all those stupid sloppy fsckers who've been wanking non-stop about license issues can come down off their high Stallman horse and use a
DE that actually WORKS.
I suppose that's all fine and well for the KDE project (and anyone else who uses Qt), but it also means that you can't sell software that links to Qt, whether it's open-source or not. (Note that technically, the provision doesn't even let you charge nominal distribution fees.)
I guess the idea is that they have a separate license they will offer to businesses which want to write non-open applications using QPL-covered software.
*sigh* It's licenses like this that prevent open source from truly becoming popular in the business world. The only license so far that is not hostile to legitimate business use is the MPL/NPL. Go Netscape!
since nobody gives a fuck about KDE anymore... GNOME is clearly superior. there'll be hardly any posts in this thread - the posts in the GNOME thread were from KDE diehards who can't admit they made the wrong choice.
Its only illegal if you distribute binaries
for an OS with which Qt is not normally
distributed -- since Mandrake Linux does, as
do a few others, it is perfectly legal to
redistribute binaries. (Bear in mind that the OS
is not Linux, but the Linux Distribution)
Corba has been part of KOffice from the beginning. You might want to ge your facts straight before you publish wrong information.
Thank you.
Why don't you give me all your money? Until you do, I won't give you serious consideration as a human being. I don't understand why you haven't already given me your money, acually. I also think you're being totally unreasonable by not taking a second job to provide me with even more money. This inaction on your part strikes me as very self serving. When will you get a clue?
>... it is crap as of today.
From which points ? If you found something you can improve or suggestions, why not tell the developers or contribute to it rather than bash it ?
>My apologies to developers, you are good guys, >but it is it is fucking far from being good now.
Or they maybe if waiting for a developers like you to make it perfect ?
LOL was this a serious post? Have you heard of Corel using KDE for WordPerect? Umm someone does care...
like gnome?
RE: Can anyone comment on whether it's now legal for non-authors (copyright holders) to ship binaries linked against Qt?
REPLY:
Look at section 4. Doesn't say the toolkit must be included, just that it must be freely available to anyone who uses the binaries distributed.
Here's the full text of the QPL: (note, no formatting was done, sorry)
--------------------------------
THE Q PUBLIC LICENSE version 1.0
Copyright (C) 1999 Troll Tech AS, Norway.
Everyone is permitted to copy and
distribute this license document.
The intent of this license is to establish freedom to share and change the software regulated by this license under the open source model.
This license applies to any software containing a notice placed by the copyright holder saying that it may be distributed under the terms of the Q Public License
version 1.0. Such software is herein referred to as the Software. This license covers modification and distribution of the Software, use of third-party application
programs based on the Software, and development of free software which uses the Software.
Granted Rights
1. You are granted the non-exclusive rights set forth in this license provided you agree to and comply with any and all conditions in this license. Whole or partial
distribution of the Software, or software items that link with the Software, in any form signifies acceptance of this license.
2. You may copy and distribute the Software in unmodified form provided that the entire package, including - but not restricted to - copyright, trademark notices
and disclaimers, as released by the initial developer of the Software, is distributed.
3. You may make modifications to the Software and distribute your modifications, in a form that is separate from the Software, such as patches. The following
restrictions apply to modifications:
a. Modifications must not alter or remove any copyright notices in the Software.
b. When modifications to the Software are released under this license, a non-exclusive royalty-free right is granted to the initial developer of the
Software to distribute your modification in future versions of the Software provided such versions remain available under these terms in addition to any
other license(s) of the initial developer.
4. You may distribute machine-executable forms of the Software or machine-executable forms of modified versions of the Software, provided that you meet these
restrictions:
a. You must include this license document in the distribution.
b. You must ensure that all recipients of the machine-executable forms are also able to receive the complete machine-readable source code to the
distributed Software, including all modifications, without any charge beyond the costs of data transfer, and place prominent notices in the distribution
explaining this.
c. You must ensure that all modifications included in the machine-executable forms are available under the terms of this license.
5. You may use the original or modified versions of the Software to compile, link and run application programs legally developed by you or by others.
6. You may develop application programs, reusable components and other software items that link with the original or modified versions of the Software. These
items, when distributed, are subject to the following requirements:
a. You must ensure that all recipients of machine-executable forms of these items are also able to receive and use the complete machine-readable
source code to the items without any charge beyond the costs of data transfer.
b. You must explicitly license all recipients of your items to use and re-distribute original and modified versions of the items in both
machine-executable and source code forms. The recipients must be able to do so without any charges whatsoever, and they must be able to
re-distribute to anyone they choose.
c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items, then you must supply one.
Limitations of Liability
In no event shall the initial developers or copyright holders be liable for any damages whatsoever, including - but not restricted to - lost revenue or profits or other
direct, indirect, special, incidental or consequential damages, even if they have been advised of the possibility of such damages, except to the extent invariable law,
if any, provides otherwise.
No Warranty
The Software and this license document are provided AS IS with NO WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING THE WARRANTY OF DESIGN,
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Choice of Law
This license is governed by the Laws of Norway. Disputes shall be settled by Oslo City Court.
Paradoxically many people don't want the GPL for libraries because they want other to be able to write proprietary software with their libraries and the GPL prevents this while the LGPL permits this.
I think that the support that QT has in KDE and with a number of distros (Caldera, SuSe) that any major forks of this code will be prevented. Troll has shown that they respect open-source ideals and that a company can thrive within the open-source community.
I see nothing wrong with requiring people who write software that they sell to pay some development costs for that software.
Yes as far as I understood it you can do that. But you cannot
distribute it under a different license.
since we are discussing QPL, why are you continue the subject on GNOME... ? Should you be posting this on the previous forum ?
Let not try another flame war....
How do you expect business to embrace open source if you don't give them any incentive to do so? In essense trolltech is putting a "tax" on proprietary software to fund to propagation of free software.
Only because GNOME was using CORBA.
It has since a few days been possible to use QT
2.0 for the development version of the CVS.
But of course, you must get 2.0 to compile
first, allthough that is no problem.
Thank you.
Flame away, Slashdolts! Show us how stupid you are!
I see 2 major differences:
1) QPL allows you to only distribute changes in the form
of patches. GPL is somewhat more practical as you can
distribute the whole changed enchillada.
2) GPL does not allow use in commercial apps. With QPL
you can pay USD 1300 or 2000 and use it to make commercial
software.
QPL discriminates against commercial developers.
GPL discriminates against proprietary developers.
x
Where is the code then? I couldn't find it anywhere. Do I need to apply for access to it?
This license looks to me (and I am no lawyer) to be pretty open.
Can someone with a greater feel for this point out the strengths and especially weaknesses of this license?
Thanks.
KDE is undoubtably unstoppable! Qt and KDE are the future of OSS desktop computing, freed from the domination and control of Red$at - long known as GNOME's pupeteer.
Go KDE Go!
Search the GNOME archives, and you will see that GNOME went with CORBA way after KDE had standardised on it.
Thank you kindly.
Thank you for making a distinction between commercial
and proprietary. I forgot about that in another post. It's
probably time for my yearly pilgrimage to the GNU website.
How did I correct it?
I deleted
Tremble in fear of having to do such a thing in Windows. It reminds me of when my wife had our first kid and I heard something rip in the process... (that was when I fainted...hehe)
6 months ago they all complained about GNOME being version 0.3, despite the fact that it was very stable for many people. Now it's 1.0 and they are saying that it couldn't be done yet. FUD FUD FUD. There are a lot of gnome developers, GNOME has been very stable for a lot of people for a long time, and there are a lot of GNOME apps in the works. They are delivering products, not just license announcments.
Whether you like it or not, GNOME has come a long way very quickly. The only real difference between GNOME and KDE is the number of apps supported. KDE has the makings of a fully integrated office suit and GNOME's is just starting out.
It looks more to me like the trolls are trying to come up with a business model which allows people to use their product and make a bit of money also.
The company I work for writes proprietary software. We are looking at adding a GUI to a simulation code and are considering different toolkits. Price isn't the first thing we look at. Quality and turn-around time are things we look at. If we decide to use QT and the troll's tell us we can have it for free we'd pay them anyway. It doesn't do any good to put your vendors out of business.
Let's leave the KDE thread at pole position for the next 18-20 hours and see what develops. I predict nothing much'll happen.
We need a real damned LAWYER in here to tell us what the difference between the GPL and the LGPL and the QPL is... in layman's terms!!!
email: babylon@netroplex.com
QPL does not discriminate against commercial software, it discriminates against closed-source software.
Have they no shame? The slame RMS on their web site, they bitch to no end about how pointless GNOME is while failing to understand the significance of freedom, and now they are trying to ride the wave created by GNOME.
I look at this a positive evidence of GNOME's strength. GNOME is on the road to winning.
>>Enlightenment is too slow
I was once always said that, but someone which I forgot prove me wrong. You can actually speed up Enlightenment.
use imlib_config, the underscore one !!!
tweak the configuration to the actual spec of you computer. Add the ram section. This actually help a lot, cause its improve the graphics cache.
use a less fancy, the Clean themes and the Brushed Metal theme. The themes are in the latest vsion of enlightement.
It was usable(fast enough and cool too !) for me not to switch back to Icewm. I can tell you I try every window manager there is, even the (a hack of) fvwm-gnome.
I was on a pentium 100.
>>GNOME menu is slow.
Why its slow, I think is cause it is load from a 64x64 size and then resize to 16x16.
Futhermore, its 16 bits colors. Correct me if I am wrong.
to make it fast, go to the global panel configuration,, disable the icon, the button and enable the keep menu in memory.
this should help it to speed it up.
If you have problems install GNOME, either you read the FAQs or subscribes to mailing lists and ask questions, they will be gladly to answers your questions.
Keepp trying, I know you can.
I apologize, I still think GNOME had more CORBA code faster though.
Kinda seems like Netscape vs. Internet Explorer..
Netscape was there(KDE) while IE(GNOME) worked its way up fast.. Netscape had a good chunk of the user base while IE didnt.. all in all MS and the Gnome people did a good fast job of giving us an incomlpete overhyped underdeveloped product fast
I actually can't tell whether this post is for Gnome or for KDE. Aren't they both rabidly supported by the Slashdolts?
Please clearly state which side you are on so that I can properly ridicule you for your foolish choice!
Quick Question:
Does anyone else remember the Tiled Window Manager which never allowed any window to overlap? What ever happened to it?
guh-noo-lix
Can't you see that this thread has been at pole position for a few minutes and already has over a 100 posts?
who gives a rats ass who made what first, as long as the end product is better.
>>freed from the domination and control of Red$at - long known as GNOME's pupeteer
As long as GNOME is GPL and LGPL and under the guidance of Redhat, FSF, RMS, RHAD labs and Miguel. I was firmly in confident of them. Especially RMS, man with strong vision, will fight for it , live for it.
Rather than tech trool, "we will not gurantee we will not sue"
Not really. All your modifications have to be distributed as patches, which makes it impractical to make significant changes.
I think this also makes it GPL incompatible, which means distributing KDE binaries will still be illegal. KDE people need to get permission from all the people whose code they've used to make an exception in their license for binary redistribution with QT.
How is it incomplete or underdevloped? I'd say GNOME 1.0 is more worthy of a "1.0" than KDE 1.0 was.
Or even statically linked as long as you provide object files for relinking.
slashdot was displaying only the thread and not the articles so i thought we went past 100. just a malfunction it's still below 80 articles.
Al least now its GPL/LGPL vs QPL. GNOME was started to fix the license issue of KDE.
And don't compare GNOME to IE, it was an insult.
1. Look at the KDE cvs logs if you are interested what the KDE team did while GNOME spends the weeks announcing a simple panel and a GTK port of the midnight commander as innovation of the century.
2. The QPL was released by Troll Tech, not by KDE.
3. RMS is _quoted_ on the KDE webpages, not slamed. (Not even out of context, there's a complete interview!)
hey, don't tell me..
tell them, read TODO files, asking questions, asking where you can contribute, ask...ask...
I though the print widget is in gnome-print ?
A MacOS port has been "in progress" for about a googlezillion years. It's been dropped I think.
...is a common desktop specification format compatible with BOTH GNOME and KDE. I think the 'KDE uber-alles' folks are missing part of the picture. Qt and Gtk are really playing to different markets: C++ developers, and non-C++ developers.
You do NOT need to distribute modifications as patches (that was the old licence). However, Troll Tech reserves the right to include your modifications in the commercial version of QT. Even RMS (the self-promoted saint of Free Software) said that the new licence can qualify as free software.
"The QPL actively discourages development of proprietary and shareware software (you have to pay if you want to develop proprietary apps derived from QPL'ed code"
When QT become the standard (if only KDE success) and killing the GNOME, then do we have a choise ??
Nobody knows about KOM/Openparts although it is here now and working. The important thing about Baboon although it is still not released is that it has mindshare and publicity. Haven't you yourself heard of Baboon? Linux World Expo, anyone?
HTH, HAND.
I think the QPL was specifically engineered to be compatible
with GPL (otherwise, what would be the point).
But lets hear what RMS has to say about it.
That's just because they changed it. They used to say that he was a "dangerous person" and shouldn't be in charge of something like the FSF. They still quote him in a fashion that is designed to make you think he is a lunatic when in fact he is just a little on the eccentric side.
At Last!!
A new software model, and this time one that works!
Determine the quality of software by the quantity of lame slashdot posts! Why didn't we think of that before?
I guess QT just got 1 point better.
Regards
gnulix!
Pros: less lawyerese than previous QPL versions.
Cons: still requires distributions to only be made as patches, and is GPL incompatible, making distribution of KDE binaries illegal.
So what is missing from GNOME 1.0 that KDE 1.0 has? I doubt you even know what you are even talking about because you say "I intend to check GNOME out more in detail". What have you checked out??? Ha! If you checked it out you would already know that GNOME 1.0 has already passed KDE 1.1 in stability and functionality. Instead you just FUD away something you know nothing about. You are no better than Mr. Muth from M$.
I can say that I have tried BOTH KDE 1.1 and GNOME 1.0 and prefer GNOME. Why, I like the way it works better. Am I going to flame KDE? No, because I won't stoop to your level.
Now where is the vapor??? Because you posted such an uninformed message like you did. It's coming out of your arse!!!!
If there is great demand for a LGPL Qt compatible framework
then I'm sure that Harmony will be revived. But for the
Free Software world this will not be necessary (that is
why Harmony has stopped development).
Justin, are you simply parotting what you have heard? Why ever would you want C bindings? Have you seen what a mess Object Orientation is in C? No? See this link: http://www.gtk.org/tutorial/gtk_tut-24.html
Now compare OO in C to OO in C++ and tell me you're not joking.
But what good is KOM/OpenParts if nobody knows about it or really uses it? This is why publicity is important and GNOME has the momentum. I'm afraid to say KDE may be irrelevant in a bit.
I guess what it comes down to for me is, can I fork the tree? With the GPL and LGPL as long as I'm willing to live with the license I can do what ever I want to the code. I can fork the tree, change the name, do what ever it is I feel like I need to do. This QPL sounds more restrictive to me. It might fit the opensource definition but I don't think it is as open as most opensource. If it was, then why don't they just post the source to qt 2.0 and let the community help them finish it?
in Linux world, a lot of thing id DIY.
a lot of projects emerge because some developer want to scrath their itch.
don't want to contribute,...
ask, request...many many times until they notice you.
wxMac is being actively developed and
the guy who does it is doing this
for money so wxMac will be there in
rather short time. A preview is
already availble, BTW.
Robert Roebling
> 4 b) and 6 a) and b) talk about "machine-readable source
> code". This is considerably weaker than the GPL, since it
> allows for obfuscated source code. The GPL demands
> "preferred form of the work for making modifications to
> it", which is a very good definition and excludes obfuscation.
Yes I worried about that too! We can't have obfuscated code
posing as free software.
> 6 only applies to items which are "distributed", but 6 c)
> talks about items "not available to the general public".
> It is not clear what exactly "distributed" means here.
> think it should only apply to 6 a) and 6 b), but not to 6 c).
I think it means that if an organization uses the free Qt license
to develop internal software, and Troll Tech finds out about
it, then Troll Tech has the right to request the sourcecode
and redistribute it. The organization has not the obligation
to redistribute it out of themselves (like an other poster thought).
I didn't read the post you're replying to but jeez.
;)
Comparing somebody to Muth??? That's just outrageous!
plz post screenshot of your GNOME 1.0 desktop (and not a pointer to the old mess on the GNOME website)
6. You may develop application programs, reusable components and other software items that link with the original or modified versions of the Software. These items, when distributed, are subject to the following requirements:
[...]
c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items, then you must supply one.
I read this as: if you write anything that links with (free) Qt, even proprietary internal-use-only software, then you have to give Troll Tech a copy of it if they ask.
Uh, thanks, but no thanks. Not even Microsoft tries that. Nor does the GPL.
BTW: I know about baboon because, well, I know about lots of things I shouldn't waste valuable brain space on ;-)
Hehe, you're funny as hell, when will you write a book?
Um, section 3, the only section which allows modifications requires them to be distributed as patches (or an equivalent 'separate' form).
Actually, the website could do with some improvement when it comes to content organization and design, but IIRC, the website maintainers have been busy coding. You can find the binding stuff if you look around (hint; look under the software map).
The KDE website definitely is a big plus for KDE. Nice, professionally done. Not overly flashy, but in good taste. Rather good content too.
The GNOME stuff is there to be found, but it's a bit harder. And some things are a bit out of date. The CVS access and bugtracking systems are nice tho.
The logos hold water both of them. KDE's is professional but a bit unimaginative, GNOME's isnt quite as 'serious' (but then, neither is the penguin we all know and love) but as it is a stylized G, it works too.
In the mailing lists tho, GNOME wins hands down for the content. Comparing general attitude among users and developers, while there are some GNOME flamewars, there is rarely a bad word about KDE or the KDE developers, while some of the flamefests on the KDE lists make me wonder about the maturity levels... I'm sad to see some KDE users (and even developers in some cases, look at the old GIMP flamefests) have little respect for other free software developers or their property. Shame on this vocal minority. Especially since most KDE folks are a lot more mature. Oh, well. I guess these easy-to-use things will eventually bring even more of the less-than-clued-in people along. Just like USENET went in the early 90's.
What a bunch of bozos, only amature programmers or total ego maniacs (or both) would create their own OO hierarcy in C. Jeesh, I love Linux but I'm sick to death of the anti C++ nature of most of the code I see. Not to mention the "I'm too prejudiced to against C++ to actually learn how to use it well, so I'll invent my own OO technology that nobody else knows and then I'll be the expert in it because nobody else will be able to figure it out" attitue. Just makes me want to dump Linx, and I would if it weren't for Qt, wxWindows, and egcs. GNOME, What a total was of time and PR.
Yes sorry about that, I meant "proprietary" instead of
"commercial". I will repent and say my 60 Holy RMS's now.
Does it make it true?
;) ).
I'm not sure that I've seen one point yet that had any basis in fact - just more statements from self-proclaimed experts.
This isn't directed at you in particular it's just frustrating to read after a bit (doesn't stop me though
There is about as much logic as people arguing about which is their favorite type of cheese. It's OK to disagree but back up your statements.
Like using KDM with KDE 1.1 I mysteriously lose the ability to launch new programs because my X-server won't give permission. (no really).
Or when I try to shrink the panel in Gnome after resizing it crashes....
None-the-less I tend feel that the developers set goals and release when they feel that they've reached them. Obviously Miguel feels that this is 1.0. If it's not perfect it won't be used until widely until 1.1 or 1.2. At least we know that stability and bug-fixing is high on the priority list.
If a KDE related article is posted, GNOME zealots flame away. If a GNOME related article is posted, KDE zealots flame away. I think some people should just get a life, move out of your parent's basement, and take off that tinfoil hat (the government is not trying to control your mind).
-A person happy to have anyone develop for Linux.
We are looking at adding a GUI to a simulation code and are considering different toolkits.
A better idea: look at developing/documenting a standard interface to it so that you can plug in different GUIs made with various toolkits.
(Aside, not aimed at you personally: I get weary of programmers - especially Unix/Linux programmers who should know better - falling into the Windoze / MacOS mistake of integrating model, view and controller into a single monolithic chunk.)
-AJWM
Yeah. I noticed. Sorry! Should have checked my facts before I spouted off such nonsense.
Being an IBM'er, I am a little embarrassed to post this though I was but a babe when all this went down.
The term "machine-readable source code" is most likely used to prevent people from giving away printed copies of the source code, which are of little use to anybody. I agree, though, that it could be construed to allow for obfuscated source code.
What happened here is that when IBM started moving to proprietary software, and stopped distributing source code with its mainframes, it only provided source code (to those who demanded it) in printed form. Since OCR was pretty much nonexistant at the time, this rendered the sourcecode pretty much useless. Pretty soon, no one cared that IBM no longer distributed source in ANY form.
Did you even read my post?
I don't want it for free. I don't care if it's free. I want them to keep working on it. I'm happy to pay for that.
$1K isn't a lot of money compared to the cost of software developement if you're selling your code.
If I were able to release this code - I wouldn't pay 1K to use Qt. But that's not my situation.
Everytime someone decides to write a comercial application for Linux, he has to pay Troll Tech,
he does not pay Richard, Linus, KDE people, he pays the Troll TEch tax! how can you guys say that this is freedom? Do you want to replace M$ tax by TT tax?
Why would KDE become irrelevant in a bit? Just
because GNOME releases their buggy 1.0 more than
a year after KDE comes out with a (fairly solid)
1.0? If anything, GNOME may be the irrelevant
one, simply because they are so far behind KDE in
terms of functionality and polish.
I don't know about the functionality of the bindings, but bindings are in the works.
Yes, they are trying to control your mind. But unfortunately, they're already INSIDE YOUR HEAD, so wearing a tinfoil hat won't help.
While I admire Qt, KDE and Troll Tech I think Richard Stallman has every right to be "the self-promoted saint of Free Software".
I personally have no trouble with closed source apps (I prefer open source though) and believe RMS is wrong on a number of issues however, the guy started FSF. He did it before there was a GNU religion, before all the hype, before all the flames and he did it with little help from anyone else. He did it before most of the modern GPL junkies were even born.
For these reasons I'll raise a glass to RMS as well as Troll Tech.
Regards
Any true free software advocate would see the folly in this!
I found out that my post above was wrong as I noticed that only closed source developers need to pay money to Troll Tech. I take this opportunity to apologize and thank them for their wonderful contribution to the Open Source world!!
Thank you Troll Tech, Thank you KDE!!!
Actually the engine is written in FORTRAN gasp. So there isn't to much danger of GUI toolkit dependence ;)
Another question of preference. Me, I vastly prefer LGPL libraries to GPL or QPL. Because:
a) I dont believe that GPL/QPL libraries will ever reach a good enough market penetration.
b) I would never *ever* recommend a GPL or QPL licensed library for use by a commercial developer. Especially not a QPL licensed one, since it brings the possibility of having to disclose internally used source. Sounds like a legal and administrative mess. And both licenses remove the freedom to choose how ones own source code is used (I have no objection to the restrictions they impose on the other peoples source code).
c) The investment in knowledge about Qt places restrictions on how you can use that knowledge. Better have your programmers learn a toolkit where you can make the choices, wether they be to free application (yay! where do I send the check?) or make it proprietary (yeah, well, bloated buggy stuff usually anyway. Dont expect me to buy it.).
In the end it's the whole Motif mess all over again but in the opposite extreme this time. Woohoo. No thanks.
Sorry, ignore my preaching. See my next post for an explanation, I misread the license. Thanks. :-))
Ohmigod, I, Anonymous Coward have finally gone totally mad! This eternal bickering! I cant stand it! The voices, the voices, all the time they're saying GNOME! No! KDE! Noooo! They force me to post these things all day and night. Last night they didn't let me sleep at all, eventually they just told me to post and post and post until I broke the record!
Heh.. Isn't that just the weirdest thing? Talk about going 180 degrees.
j
Do you have any proof to show that GNOME is buggy? Have you even tried it?? I, was thiking of tyrying GNOME but since I use KDE and don't have time yet to remove KDE before installing GNOME.
I don't use either since my PC is such a wuss. If anyone knows about this tiled window manager though I would definitely switch to it!
Well, I grabbed the whole source for gnome and it is buggy. gmc does some weird stuff to me and I've had to kill a couple runaway processes... Not to mention that starting gnome-session and then wmaker causes e to try and start only to complian about another manager already running, while just running gnome session doesn't give me much of anything...
Beowulf!
http://www.troll.no/dl/qtfree-dl.html
You don't have to apply for access to the 1.42
version which is the latest stable one. Qt 2.0
is available in CVS and you have to apply for
free access to it.
--
Fredrik Henbjork
Email: frehe491@student.liu.se
WWW: http://g204.ryd.student.liu.se
I, for one, will never use KDE as long as I cannot use it with C. Period.
Well, you can of course still have a C compiler and KDE installed at the same time. If you mean C bindings for KDE than you might want to check out the QtC bindings or even help development!
Sorry to hear about your period.
*shrug* It actually does work tho, it's easy to learn, portable, comparatively small, unbloated code, etc. While there may be some prejudice against learning C++, since virtually nobody has managed to learn C++ 'well' (ie, produce fast unbloated code, which the real C++ die-hards claim can be done), maybe the problem lies in the language rather than the people using it.
Then again, it's been said before, only amature programmers or total egomaniacs (or both) would ever set out to write their own OS. (Even worse, a monolithic kernel based (how... low-tech)). No, established microkernel based operating systems and C++ are definitely the technology to use (there may be some slight performance penalty, but if people would just learn to code better...). Then again, maybe not.
But Mozilla is an apllication, if QT was a browser, the license would be really excellent, the problem is that the most fundamental libraries of the Linux desktop cannot be controled by a company!
This is pure FUD! Moxilla provides much more than just a browser. Have you heard of Gecko? There are many other API and useful infrastructure provided by Mozilla please see http://www.mozilla.org
b) I would never *ever* recommend a GPL or QPL licensed library for use by a commercial developer. Especially not a QPL licensed one, since it brings the possibility of having to disclose internally used source. Sounds like a legal and administrative mess. And both licenses remove the freedom to choose how ones own source code is used (I have no objection to the restrictions they impose on the other peoples source code).
This applies only to free version of QT. If you buy a commercial version you don't have to distribute the source.
Avoid debian here too, it will make you install 12 different versions of GTK+ and GDK, you won't believe it. I recommend you stick with CVS.
slashdot PRE tag is foo bar, i am sorry. i stole this stats from KDE lists
Subject: KDE Anonymous FTP Stats
TOTALS FOR SUMMARY PERIOD Thu Feb 25 1999 TO Wed Mar 3 1999
Files Transmitted During Summary Period 349848
Bytes Transmitted During Summary Period 214935085501
Systems Using Archives 0
Average Files Transmitted Daily 49978
Average Bytes Transmitted Daily 30705012214
Daily Transmission Statistics
Number Of Number of Average Percent Of Percent Of
Date Files Sent Bytes Sent Xmit Rate Files Sent Bytes Sent
--------------- ---------- ----------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Thu Feb 25 1999 55182 40024343327 5.0 KB/s 15.77 18.62
Fri Feb 26 1999 77356 48787836291 5.2 KB/s 22.11 22.70
Sat Feb 27 1999 57409 32317955927 4.1 KB/s 16.41 15.04
Sun Feb 28 1999 57887 34481512648 4.2 KB/s 16.55 16.04
Mon Mar 1 1999 49327 29002318408 4.2 KB/s 14.10 13.49
Tue Mar 2 1999 52082 29981867407 4.5 KB/s 14.89 13.95
Wed Mar 3 1999 605 339251493 3.6 KB/s 0.17 0.16
Total Transfers from each Archive Section (By bytes)
---- Percent Of ----
Archive Section Files Sent Bytes Sent Files Sent Bytes Sent
------------------------- ---------- ----------- ---------- ----------
/pub/kde/stable/1.1 160074 10641235454 45.76 49.51
//pub/kde/stable 107639 82899642221 30.77 38.57
//pub/kde/unstable 22263 5778760571 6.36 2.69
/pub/kde/unstable/CVS 9661 4061220219 2.76 1.89
/pub/kde/Incoming/redhatr 336 3774929728 0.10 1.76
/pub/kde/unstable/apps 21260 3151791528 6.08 1.47
/pub/kde/Incoming/RedHat- 3444 2358647849 0.98 1.10
/pub/kde/stable/old 2851 1514927667 0.81 0.70
//pub/kde/Incoming 2789 1332489302 0.80 0.62
/pub/kde/Incoming/staggs 1079 1085225477 0.31 0.50
/pub/kde 2782 958275413 0.80 0.45
/pub/kde/Incoming 3150 776151731 0.90 0.36
//pub/kde 4494 261843360 1.28 0.12
/pub/kde/doc/Pictures_fro 625 103705315 0.18 0.05
//pub/kde/doc 867 85944053 0.25 0.04
//pub/kde/demos 869 64485788 0.25 0.03
/pub/kde/unstable 190 55159779 0.05 0.03
//pub/kde/devel 924 51495312 0.26 0.02
/pub/kde/demos/screenshot 607 50291758 0.17 0.02
///pub/kde 115 49518332 0.03 0.02
/unreadable 2 26703391 0.00 0.01
/pub/kde/devel/doc 109 16848956 0.03 0.01
/pub/kde/devel/helpers 235 14680909 0.07 0.01
/pub/kde/devel/widgets 264 10251245 0.08 0.00
/pub/kde/devel/qt-binding 163 10234122 0.05 0.00
/pub/kde/devel/kde-bindin 114 6500108 0.03 0.00
/pub/kde/doc 347 5755582 0.10 0.00
/pub/kde/devel/other_libs 147 5580469 0.04 0.00
//// 7 4557189 0.00 0.00
/pub/kde/stable 1418 1663314 0.41 0.00
/pub 1 1597440 0.00 0.00
//pub/kde/NEW.logs 137 1505546 0.04 0.00
/pub/kde/NEW.logs 132 1168640 0.04 0.00
/pub/kde/unstable/develop 63 511865 0.02 0.00
/pub/kde/devel/plugins 81 335597 0.02 0.00
//pub/kde/adm 210 135044 0.06 0.00
/pub/kde/devel 116 81623 0.03 0.00
/pub/kde/adm 117 45344 0.03 0.00
/pub/kde/adm/pics 91 39495 0.03 0.00
/pub/kde/demos 75 29676 0.02 0.00
Total Transfer Amount By Domain
Number Of Number of Average Percent Of Percent Of
Domain Name Files Sent Bytes Sent Xmit Rate Files Sent Bytes Sent
----------- ---------- ------------ ---------- ---------- ----------
ae 1 262144 0.4 KB/s 0.00 0.00
ar 1623 571347496 3.1 KB/s 0.46 0.27
at 2928 1311309671 6.1 KB/s 0.84 0.61
au 2263 1582423749 2.9 KB/s 0.65 0.74
be 3804 2451281222 9.8 KB/s 1.09 1.14
bg 655 176421769 2.8 KB/s 0.19 0.08
bh 11 11570076 1.7 KB/s 0.00 0.01
bm 4 546513 1.7 KB/s 0.00 0.00
bo 7 3663524 0.6 KB/s 0.00 0.00
br 4283 2810553772 1.9 KB/s 1.22 1.31
bw 16 3996365 0.9 KB/s 0.00 0.00
by 5 12341 2.5 KB/s 0.00 0.00
ca 5303 4112220906 4.9 KB/s 1.52 1.91
ch 1442 738463512 8.1 KB/s 0.41 0.34
ci 5 76110 0.8 KB/s 0.00 0.00
cl 239 201357709 2.9 KB/s 0.07 0.09
cn 253 110405527 0.8 KB/s 0.07 0.05
co 322 139033976 1.0 KB/s 0.09 0.06
cr 24 16408466 0.8 KB/s 0.01 0.01
cu 14 19217124 0.4 KB/s 0.00 0.01
cy 16 20454837 3.0 KB/s 0.00 0.01
cz 2608 1495034888 5.7 KB/s 0.75 0.70
de 34279 17951161474 7.8 KB/s 9.80 8.35
dk 5064 2702318615 11.1 KB/s 1.45 1.26
do 14 2639679 0.8 KB/s 0.00 0.00
ec 3 869 0.3 KB/s 0.00 0.00
ee 389 349425726 5.8 KB/s 0.11 0.16
eg 7 371712 0.1 KB/s 0.00 0.00
es 4310 2148866762 2.6 KB/s 1.23 1.00
fi 2031 1441116062 13.2 KB/s 0.58 0.67
fr 8775 5004262913 4.2 KB/s 2.51 2.33
gb 83 59431100 82.5 KB/s 0.02 0.03
gr 1456 822778966 4.5 KB/s 0.42 0.38
gt 13 31778005 1.5 KB/s 0.00 0.01
hk 982 821786863 4.1 KB/s 0.28 0.38
hr 696 369074553 4.0 KB/s 0.20 0.17
hu 2702 1405303976 5.1 KB/s 0.77 0.65
id 105 63402311 1.4 KB/s 0.03 0.03
ie 119 103189092 4.6 KB/s 0.03 0.05
il 932 636656224 2.1 KB/s 0.27 0.30
in 87 49032954 1.0 KB/s 0.02 0.02
is 921 594651132 6.5 KB/s 0.26 0.28
it 6132 3130388765 2.6 KB/s 1.75 1.46
jm 41 33833058 0.4 KB/s 0.01 0.02
jp 7384 4242807591 6.7 KB/s 2.11 1.97
kg 1 15817 15.8 KB/s 0.00 0.00
kr 4272 700757158 11.8 KB/s 1.22 0.33
kw 2 1702236 1.3 KB/s 0.00 0.00
ky 1 3288609 2.5 KB/s 0.00 0.00
kz 97 63447168 2.3 KB/s 0.03 0.03
lb 58 29802865 6.2 KB/s 0.02 0.01
li 12 24574498 2.0 KB/s 0.00 0.01
lk 21 21731088 1.3 KB/s 0.01 0.01
lt 94 28717680 0.8 KB/s 0.03 0.01
Total Transfer Amount By Domain
Number Of Number of Average Percent Of Percent Of
Domain Name Files Sent Bytes Sent Xmit Rate Files Sent Bytes Sent
----------- ---------- ------------ ---------- ---------- ----------
lu 24 21176294 12.9 KB/s 0.01 0.01
lv 74 36517995 4.6 KB/s 0.02 0.02
md 702 149936202 1.4 KB/s 0.20 0.07
mk 13 12186510 2.1 KB/s 0.00 0.01
mt 1 159923 0.8 KB/s 0.00 0.00
mx 477 367933466 1.9 KB/s 0.14 0.17
my 489 315117986 1.7 KB/s 0.14 0.15
na 24 9877360 1.9 KB/s 0.01 0.00
nc 1 799 0.8 KB/s 0.00 0.00
nl 9050 5654827966 6.3 KB/s 2.59 2.63
no 3435 1841403690 6.9 KB/s 0.98 0.86
nu 69 62562544 20.7 KB/s 0.02 0.03
nz 1918 1605251650 7.0 KB/s 0.55 0.75
om 1 73728 9.2 KB/s 0.00 0.00
ph 15 21023572 1.2 KB/s 0.00 0.01
pk 6 9216327 1.8 KB/s 0.00 0.00
pl 2880 1408292544 2.1 KB/s 0.82 0.66
pt 3120 1680141486 7.4 KB/s 0.89 0.78
py 5 530891 2.7 KB/s 0.00 0.00
ro 2964 1389498335 5.4 KB/s 0.85 0.65
ru 4220 2157713604 1.5 KB/s 1.21 1.00
se 3463 2628995155 6.0 KB/s 0.99 1.22
sg 632 410425331 3.3 KB/s 0.18 0.19
si 352 256175065 4.0 KB/s 0.10 0.12
sk 1453 718198811 4.2 KB/s 0.42 0.33
su 1962 821421172 3.0 KB/s 0.56 0.38
sz 9 1699809 0.3 KB/s 0.00 0.00
th 797 418359626 5.9 KB/s 0.23 0.19
to 24 4811722 2.2 KB/s 0.01 0.00
tr 5148 1273278464 6.8 KB/s 1.47 0.59
tt 5 88414 4.4 KB/s 0.00 0.00
tw 1799 1158918581 5.0 KB/s 0.51 0.54
ua 827 822243839 0.8 KB/s 0.24 0.38
uk 4845 3462642733 5.1 KB/s 1.38 1.61
us 1299 578613026 5.5 KB/s 0.37 0.27
uy 254 125804041 1.1 KB/s 0.07 0.06
ve 96 49705305 1.1 KB/s 0.03 0.02
yu 77 49504632 1.1 KB/s 0.02 0.02
za 273 217626005 1.5 KB/s 0.08 0.10
zm 20 1965111 1.1 KB/s 0.01 0.00
com 58596 39617400890 6.1 KB/s 16.75 18.43
edu 16136 12895358277 11.9 KB/s 4.61 6.00
gov 2033 1412333176 29.2 KB/s 0.58 0.66
int 26 9812776 37.2 KB/s 0.01 0.00
mil 4556 2654541910 37.9 KB/s 1.30 1.24
net 41128 27898190336 3.5 KB/s 11.76 12.98
org 1781 1712008774 6.5 KB/s 0.51 0.80
arpa 22 20027777 3.6 KB/s 0.01 0.01
none 1 992 1.0 KB/s 0.00 0.00
unresolved 65817 40346985344 3.8 KB/s 18.81 18.77
caldera.com 20 10128317 58.2 KB/s 0.01 0.00
These figures only reflect ANONYMOUS FTP transfers. There are many
sites which mount the archives via NFS, and those transfers are not
logged and reported by this program.
Hourly Transmission Statistics
Number Of Number of Average Percent Of Percent Of
Time Files Sent Bytes Sent Xmit Rate Files Sent Bytes Sent
--------------- ---------- ----------- ---------- ---------- ----------
00 13405 8556804827 5.0 KB/s 3.83 3.98
01 13957 8807259178 5.3 KB/s 3.99 4.10
02 13246 8208393856 4.6 KB/s 3.79 3.82
03 12902 8474395078 5.1 KB/s 3.69 3.94
04 14251 8767766567 4.8 KB/s 4.07 4.08
05 14312 8283882304 4.7 KB/s 4.09 3.85
06 13848 7900262564 4.0 KB/s 3.96 3.68
07 11901 7757025701 3.9 KB/s 3.40 3.61
08 13878 8848715354 4.2 KB/s 3.97 4.12
09 13000 8779711451 4.1 KB/s 3.72 4.08
10 13201 8870606119 4.5 KB/s 3.77 4.13
11 11967 8322826009 4.1 KB/s 3.42 3.87
12 14059 8302750400 4.5 KB/s 4.02 3.86
13 14753 8799932349 4.3 KB/s 4.22 4.09
14 15254 8731192688 4.5 KB/s 4.36 4.06
15 13524 8827082646 4.2 KB/s 3.87 4.11
16 13905 8556885964 4.3 KB/s 3.97 3.98
17 16604 9605015698 4.3 KB/s 4.75 4.47
18 16807 10342476226 4.7 KB/s 4.80 4.81
19 18401 11349007414 5.3 KB/s 5.26 5.28
20 21980 9853762927 5.1 KB/s 6.28 4.58
21 16755 10170239200 4.6 KB/s 4.79 4.73
22 14619 9651219490 4.8 KB/s 4.18 4.49
23 13319 9167871491 4.4 KB/s 3.81 4.27
I'm inclined to believe that you don't know what you're talking about though. OO is far more than syntatic sugar in a language. GTK+ is actually modeled in a very slick way. The makers are object people all the way. The code may not be the prettiest to look at but that has nothing to do with the modeling. It's C, and C can be ugly but that has nothing to do with objects or object modeling or the qaulity of the code.
Historically all of the most popular GUIs have been developed in a layered approach. A highly procedural set of low level APIs, then object models are built around them using de jour OOPL of the month (C++ for now, it was Pascal with Objects when MacOS was first written) and then finally full frameworks are made. QT is just the same except in ignores one stage. (Although it still does make X calls... X is in C)
The advantage is that you end up with a GUI that is language neutral, it's very easy to bind C api calls to C++, Ada, Python, Perl, Modula-3, etc... When you do the bindings you can also use the modeling technique that best fits with the language you are using. No need to force the shitty object modeling that C++ers use so frequently on a smalltalker or an ada user. C++ OTOH can be quite involved to produce language bindings for especially if you have a full object framework you are trying to bind. It's even worse if you are trying to change the object model when you bind it to something else.
GTK-- isn't very good yet but it's getting there and it's not too bad. (If anything that is the most significant difference between KDE and GNOME, GTK+ is much more dynamic and has much more work being done to it than QT does, I'd say it's a weakness of GNOME for now but in another 6 months there will be some benefits) When it does QT and GTK+ will be functionally the same the only difference is that there will be bindings for about 20 langagues for GTK+ and maybe 3 or 4 for QT. That's not too important because those 3 or 4 will be the big popular ones. It will just give the end programmers more freedom to choose which tools they are most comfortable with and fit their tasks if they use GTK+.
But to think that you can't use C++ with GTK+ because it was written in C really shows your ignorance or lack of skill as a programmer. I'll agree that the code can be a little ugly but it's a cake walk to put wrapper classes around it especially because it is already so object oriented.
Come on we all know this. KDE is a fully operational Desktop Env. Gnome isnt even close. The GNOME crowd reminds me so much of Christians, they preach a bunch of crap based upon ideology and not pragmatism. The worst thing is just like christians they want to impose their "faith" on you for "your own good".
Let jus hope there GNOME fanatics dont vote. Next thing you know we'd have a libertarian nutcase in power.
Zenor
gnulix gnulix gnulix!
beognu! beognu! beognu!
And who is spreading FUD? You are nitwit, so shut the f**k up, you two-bit ***re.
www.swig.org will help you write bindings for scripting languages in C++.
> KWM is bar none the worst WM I've ever seen (and I even include TWM in there), and it's the only reason I (and probably most people who don't know just how badly KWM messes up the rest of the desktop environment and blame it
> on something else) don't like KDE. It's almost entirely because of KWM that KDE is so slow, ugly, and unstable; I know this because as soon as I put a different windowmanager in there all of these issues disappear (or can be worked around) and KDE becomes pretty decent (not to mention fast).
Can you back up that stuff somehow? I'm using KDE since some early alpha and never had any problems with KWM, neither concerning stability, feature-lackness, uglyness, nor slowness.
Au contraire, it is quite a flexible and easy to use window manager.
> They are delivering products, not just license announcments.
At least the license doesn't crash all the day. Saying GNOME is stable for some people justifies no 1.0 release. It definitely is NOT stable for the majority of endusers - unlike KDE, which is which is stable, featurefull and now even has gotten rid of the licensing issue.
> Do you want to replace M$ tax by TT tax?
I'd rather pay a fee for a decent and stable product (what I don't even have to!) rather than spending days trying to download and install the pile of GNOME-packages.
Looks like you have to pay the RedHat fee to get a running GNOME (not to say stable - just running).
And I rather not pay RedHat a dime. BTW, GNOME fits into their distribution quite nicely - bugs everywhere and you have to update a few megs every second day.
what does that leave for the stupid people like yourself to use?
Where the phuck have you been ? KDE has been using CORBA way before Gnome did u asshole...
Nobody is saying there are no C++ bindings for GTK+. They are protesting writing C-bindings for a perfectly good C++ library.
I agree! Couldn't have said it better. Your blunt but correct. Im sick of these gnome zealots.
KDE rules!
As far as faith. Good ol mark twain said "Faith is believing what you know aint true!"
heh
you don't need to just install GNOME too. ...
I run KDE GNOME WindowMaker CDE Motif FVWM NextStep
Hmmm... Microsoft BOB?
How does this fly?....
I make my changes and make a patch to the orginal Qt stuff. Then I bundle them together in a nice SRPM. Since the original is probably going to be distributed SRPM anyhow, to the user the patches are transparent.
It's no big deal to make a patch of your changes to the original then distribute your SRPM with the patch and the orginal source. The modifications are still in separate form (a patch and a tarball) but to the user it's one package.
I just heard about a small company from Redmond that will sell you a decent and stable product for a fee. I'm sure they'd welcome your buisness.
You dont have to pay anyone anything to run GNOME. It will run just fine on any Linux distribution as well as the other unices I've tried it on (HP-UX, Solaris).
/* No properly integrated window manager. Enlightenment is too slow, WM keeps on shutting itself down and
running Blackbox on me (I don't know why) */
I had WM shut down and start fvwm a few times. By keeping a memory usage monitor running, I found out that it was doing this when I had so much crap running that main memory and the swap file were filling up.
/* and doesn't have mousing between workspaces (except when
you're carrying a window), and the others do not seem to have the necessary GNOME support. */
You can either use gnome's pager or just click on the arrows on the clip icon. No problem.
Will
A few years back I worked on a very large project for a fortune 25 company, it was about 15million lines of C++. Then one of our competitors (another fortune 100 company) wanted us to port our project from our UNIX to their UNIX because customers were digging it. After much fighting and gnashing of teeth and maybe a few hurt fists from punching the brick walls of our lab we eventually set out to port out C++ compiler to their OS because it was easier that trying to deal with the differences between our C++ and the C++ their compiler understood... Food for thought. the C++ world is better now but the number of people using it is dropping faster than anyone ever thought it would.
A) The QPL does not allow you to use in commercial applications either. Troll Tech will sell you the software under another license however.
B) There is nothing stopping a commercial proprietary developer from buying a separate license for a GPL'ed library either. For example, Cygnus will sell you the rights to develop proprietary applications with their GPL libraries.
It's amazing how the Gnome people pulled off this version stunt. From 0.2x something to 1.0 in a matter of days. Some (less intelligent it seems) people has the totally absurd idea that Qt released the QPL 1.0 recently just because Gnome went into 1.0. Do you know what my reaction was when I saw the Gnome 1.0 release? This has got to do with the fact that Linux World is just around the corner.
And I dont think I'm exaggerating when I say this. The Gnome people feel/felt so much behind the KDE people, they just had to catch up somehow. The M$ way was the only option for them. Gnome is vapourware, whether you like it or not.
GTK+, which Gnome is based on, is (what I think) the major drawback for the Gnome project. It's a hassle to write large applications in GTK+ (or any application for that matter). Just creating a new widget is hassle. It took me about 3-4 hours to figure it all out, and I do consider myself as an experienced programmer (8 years of experience). I have worked with libraries and toolkits, ranging from MFC/Win32 to pure Xlib. And I must say, I have never dealt with a messier toolkit than GTK+. I considered using GTK+ in an inhouse project where I work, but after have been messing around with it, I let it go. I fell back on Motif (which was already purchased). I have always thought that there cannot be any toolkit messier than Motif. I guess I was wrong.
The ideas behind GTK+ are excellent, they really are. But the language for which it is implemented in, is really holding it back. When I started to use Qt, it took me less than an hour to write a small application (including my own widgets). The simplicity and ease of extending Qt widgets (or any other widgets in toolkits based on OO-languages) is what have speeded up the development of KDE. They thrive on simplicity, while Gnome is slacking because of a very messy toolkit. If it was up to me, I'd junk GTK+ and go for a better toolkit, preferably C++ (or Objective-C). And before you yell, "But I want to hack in Perl or whatever!", Qt has Perl bindings. And I imagine tcl bindings could be written along with bindings for other languages as well. By not using C, is not the same thing as abolishing Other-language-bindings.
Gnome needs to use an OO language in order to survive. OO languages really helps maintaing the code base as well as extending it. A desktop environment is not a 'static' program such as a kernel. It's a very dynamic and is object oriented in nature.. so why fight it?
You wrote:
2) GPL does not allow use in commercial apps. With QPL you can pay USD 1300 or 2000 and use it to make commercial software.
s/commercial/proprietary
The GPL doesn't allow linking with proprietary apps but the LGPL does.
That's why you should avoid proprietary and incompatible compilers. The sooner an Open Source compiler like EGCS becomes the standard, the better. Maybe EGCS works on your platform today, check it out.
It doesnt really. Just the patches only thing and, of course, it still doesnt seem entirely GPL compatible which means you still cant use GPL code in a Qt application. Best wait for RMS opinion on that tho.
KDE may not be pretty, but it's not near as useless and ugly as GNOME. And before anybody flames me, yes, I tried GNOME, about three weeks ago, and it did absolutely nothing that made it worth the CPU time it took up.
> I just heard about a small company from Redmond that will sell you a decent and stable product for a fee.
No, their product is neither decent, nor stable.
> You dont have to pay anyone anything to run GNOME. It will run just fine on any Linux distribution as well
> as the other unices I've tried it on (HP-UX, Solaris).
s/run/crash/ for now. Maybe it will run some time in the future, but for now you really can't say that GNOME runs stable on (m)any platforms.
>W2K - The other millenium bug
What? You want us to change all the w's to k's too now? We've *just* finished converting all the y's to k's in all the dates in the applications (I understand it must be a serious problem with all the press about the y2k problem). Mondak, Tuesdak, and the other days, Januark, Julk, etc. Have you considered the impact on users if you want Wednesday to be called Kednesdak? This may require some user retraining.
Oh, by the way, since you mentioned millenium, have you considered the problem where some applications using dual-digit years may be confused when the year wraps from 99 to 00?
/Your friendly neighbourhood y2k (and w2k) consultancy.
If Gnome eventually becomes a fully adequate end-user desktop it will be effectivly proprietary (probably to Intell, hell why do you think they are paying those Redhat programmers?)
It will be the same with corels desktop linux or with any desktop GUI environment that becomes polished enough to compete with windows and attracts the attention of commercial interests.
KDE may resist this, but will be consigned to remain a semi-clunky product used by the geek community.
Of course, a windowing/desktop environment is a great place for OOP
Since most of the copyright holders in gnome are not employed by Redhat, including a lot of the main developers, how would they accomplish that feat? Redhat is a contributor, but doesnt hold copyright to a very big percentage of the code.
Not to mention that GNOME compiles fine on a variety of platforms, including most major commercial unix systems.
And, of course, Redhat has stated very explicitly, and shown, that they do not believe in a proprietary buisness, since that would just get them wiped out in the old Microsoft game. They are in the commodity buisness, which means that the larger they manage to get the Linux community in large (including other distributions), the larger market they have, which is the most important factor in the commodity buisness.
GNOME is still alpha, can't you understand what that means? When GNOME stable (1.1) is released then you can compare it with KDE. Till then be patient!
If the very method of extending your application is through subclassing, then SWIG bindings wont allow the target language to extend your library /application.
If you design your application/system to be extended through subclassing and then pick a language that does not support that particular OO feature, well, you've made a mistake in design.
You can write an appliation and plan to make it extensible with non-OO languages and have no more problem implementing it in C++ than if you'd written your app in C.
You can also write your app in C and invent your own OO model and, and if you haven't made clear decisions on how the language bindings will work, have excactly the same problem that you'd have with C++.
It all comes down to good design, not picking the lowest common denominator language.
GTK has bindings for around a dozen languages, and all of them work *right now*. What are you waiting for?
Design your language extention support to use non OO features then. It's not C++'s problem that some other languages don't have inheratance, you can write C in C++ if you need too, remember.
Gnome doesn't tie you to a windowmanager. It doesn't even have its own. Like GNUStep, it's a set of protocols for creating interoperable applications in a consistent environment, whatever that environment may be.
That's my main reason for switching from KDE... its insistence in tying people to *one* windowmanager (and a "sub-optimal" [to be nice] one at that) and *one* language.
If they were going to force an object-oriented language down our throats, they could've at least used a decent one like Objective-C.
GNUStep and GNOME are the future. I use them both on my machines.
....you software nazis just need to relax and enjoy whichever piece of software you feel..after all that is the beauty of freedom of choice, is it not? If you dont, arguments like this will splinter your precious little community and send it back to BBS's and such. In summary, use whatcha like, dont use whatcha dont like, and if neither fits, develop your own....as if most of you could even write these apps anyway. If this is supposed to be representative of a linux movement, then the growing pains we face are terrible indeed.
Who was the first group to contribute financial support to Gnome? Answer: debian.
Redhat != Linux. Redhat != Gnome.
Who let the unclued out of the pasture this morning?
Can someone enlighten me? WTF is Baboon and KOM?
Why should I care?
Thanks.
well put. let's get the GNU community back on track...
I use KDE and Gnome (and GNUStep) together at home. There's really no need for the fighting.
"I am too dumb to learn something new"
The problem is not in the QPL, it's in the GPL. If you link GPL'ed code with Qt, you may be violating the GPL (I would imagine that it depends on the author's interpretation of the GPL).
I want an open-source lifestyle and a desktop to match. KDE or Gnome, I don't care. I'm bi-deskual.
First it was "just you wait till 1.0" and now it's "just wait till 1.1".
What the man was saying was that the foundation of C &
GTK+ might not have been the most productive one.
I see allot of people arguing over gnome stability. My only question to those who praise gnome as the Messiah of imaculate wonders:
Have you tried compiling it?
No, rpm's don't qualify, sorry.
gnome developers: see subject
So don't write commercial apps!!
Don't you see you are acutally arguing in _favor_
of commercial software.
Well beauty is in the eye of the beholder... I have difficulty
comprehending my own C + GTK code of some months back
(yes it is commented but the GTK stuff is all over the place
making it quite unreadable - guess I should have seperated
it better).
Please do try out PyGTK as it's one of the nicest things in the
GTK world. Small apps are real quick to cook up.
Why yes, as a matter of fact I have. It seems to me that the folks over at gnome are so ashamed of the errors produced during the compilation process, they try and hide it with various -- and rather cute no less -- tactics such as:
blahblah >/dev/null 2>&1
As well as various home grown options to supress cast checking. Pretty neat hmm?
KDE is not troll tech. The KDE developers did have no
influence at all about Troll Tech's license release date.
Also, the KDE people do not flame. They don't flame RMS,
they don't flame GNOME. Look at the archive of kde-devel
if you don't believe this.
Don't you think it is a coincidence that Red Hat (yes: Red Hat)
released GNOME 1.0 at the Linux Expo? Did you even
try KDE?
-GJ
*sigh*
If you are asking money for your software, why
ON EARTH should you not pay for the toolkit
you use.
You damn IDIOT. Take but don't give.
You must be american.
Look at this Timur lad. SO possesed is he with spelling; he didn't even stop to consider that gnome is not a kernel. Another gnome follower offended by the truth, blinded by the lies, no less. Resorting to personal attacks? Tisk Tisk laddy.
"Bartender! Bring me another zealot!"
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
GNOME 1.0 is NOT stable?? Why on earth call
do they call it 1.0 for? Oh, I'm sorry. This is
one of RH's marketing techniques.
But I'll wait for 1.1. Just as I am waiting for
win98, I mean win2000.
Whooha!!
Printing? KOM/Openparts? Not in at least two years
(for GNOME, that is. readily available for KDE)
Use what there is now!
-GJ
RMS is not a little excentric,...he is a lot. Apointing oneself saint is way on the excentric side. He did a good thing when he developed lots of free stuffs, and he must be very smart because emacs is the greatest (Xemacs is better :P) And I apreceate him on a programmers standpoint, and make use of a great deal of his software a great deal of the time. (Actually all I can do is apreciate the gnuware I am using, I have never studied to see how much he really wrote, or if it was decent code...)
But I will never agree with most of the things he pawns off as truths and philosophy....they simply are not. On his website he puts edited testimonials becuase he wants the good word, yet can't stand for them using gnuware to develop proprietery ware, so he chops up what they said based on some moral value??? Give me a break.... if he was standing on some moral high ground, he would respect the rights of those people by either quoting them *IN* context and in full, or he would not quote them at all....simply saying that if it bothers him too much he will take them down is no answer...
What the Gnu website does is entirely disrespectfull of everyone reading it. It is the essence of censorship, which I find entirely unacceptable under any and all cercumstances...it is never ok.
The KDE people quoted him word for word, he came out looking like an ass. At least the respected him enough to quote him and not editorialize and reevaluate what he said to match something they wanted, and leave everything else out. They had more respect for him then he ever returned.
And when will this "Call it GNU/Linux please!" shit end??? The Linux kernel is as much a part of the system as the GNU software, the X Consortium's software, BSD software, etc etc...the list goes on and on....why should GNU get any more credit then the others?
He is obviously a good coder, he is probably a decent guy,...but he is just no philosopher or moral visionary in any right. His ideas, the good ones, are old ones...his bad ones pretty much are too....and the good ideas he has get twisted somewere in there and come out shit. He should not be followed, make your own way.
No one else does. Other users of various platforms merely pay for the compiler and development enviroment. This is one problem that Troll makes for itself when it tries to charge for something that everyone else gives away for free, even Apple & Microsoft.
So, for their money, developers don't even get devtools that they might be used to like Borland's or Microsoft's.
That's sure to be appealing to all of those Windows app coders we want to attract to Linux and FreeBSD.
Why did he have to stab KDE in the back?
KDE has techniqal deficencies.
What are you talking about? Please report them and they
will be fixed!
If you are 26 years old and still on the "throw mud"
level, I think you will never grow up.
yes, I had compiled GNOME.
I do follow the cvs.
Compiling GNOME is a little bit tricky. The Gnome developers seem like to live on the cutting egde of compling tools. They use the latest version of automake, autoconf, libtool. If you wish to compile GNOME, be sure you have the latest version of these tools.
There are 2 packages I have problems.
Control Center seem not update for a while, a lot of thing crashing.
GMC is another one, although look fine. Its still not very fine tune. Crash onece a while. Still in development.
Other are quite well only with some minor bugs which I believe they can fix it up when RedHat 6.0 is out.
**don't use Gnome RPM, it always seems Gnome developers always have problems with RPM.
That not a bug, its a feature!!!
I hate Slashdot because it seems as if Rob & co. are attempting to create flame wars. On mailing lists and other places you normally see people step in and try to avoid starting flame wars. Slashdot is not like this. The people who run Slashdot are obviously promoters of flame wars. Qt is just another graphical toolkit. There are many that came before it, and there will be many to come after. There is a ton of more interesting software out there and being shown on freshmeat.net that has serious potential. Why do other things get looked over? Because they don't generate flames. And also the people making software that gets shown on freshmeat, etc. are not well-known people. Slashdot only talks about famous software authors. Software that gets talked about on Slashdot is only for Linux and is only going to bring Linux into the spotlight.
I hate to say it, but Rob is in Slashdot for the money. He has already made it his full time job.
I know this post is 100% off topic.. but after reading previous posts, I can't say that there is any value in on-topic comments. Instead of commenting randomly or dropping the S/N ratio a notch I decided to post what I feel Slashdot is doing.
IMO, Slashdot is anything but a news site for "nerds".
QT is perhaps great development environment
but Gnome is a pice of art....Great!
We must have a GUI with a MUCH better look
than Windows.Users i talk with , say about KDE:
"It looks like Windows , why change!" And they
have right. Why change? Because its free? It
doesnt work that way! It has to be much much
better. And Gnome is the the only GUI that can
compete with Windows.We must make art this time!
And Gnome is art!
First off, GNUstep is barely useable NOW....only recently have small applications been begun with it...ICQStep, PPP.app...the big applications are still being build on OpenStep systems afaik. For the longest time, there was so little activity everyone thought the project dead and cremated.
Second, GNUstep doesn't even relate to the current environment it lives in. You cannot delete windows, it does not respond to ANY inter client communication conventions...nor do they plan on adding that support.
I have argued this point till my throught was sore and I somehow unsubscribed myself from the list without sending the request. There is more talk about replacing X with some ggi/DPS with crippled X support for "backward compatability" then of actually making it run right on the system it uses now. Actually I was one of like 3 maybe, that wanted it to work right in an X environment.
GNUstep, when and if it ever finishes, will be more seperated then any current solution ever was. IF they use X, it will only work with Window Maker and will be the most uncooperative bitch you have ever met in any other wm. You will need some sort of protocol converter just to do selections with X applications,...if you can at all.
Unless they adress these problems, GNUstep won't be anything but a NeXT junkies wet dream. The Foundation library and maybe the extensions (I never tried them) are about the only usefull thing right now....Foundation is excelent, but you can get libFoundation elsewere and use it as a normal library. It would make a great base for some real development.
Uhhh.. no it doesn't . Read the license.
What people call art these days is shameful...
I started out discussing the new QPL but just now I made
some replies where I join in the GNOME bashing/critiqueing
crowd. I know I shouldn't have done it and I'm mildly ashamed
of myself but I can't help it. You see that the discussion starts of
very serious and on-topic and then gradually degenerates
into completely useless fighting.
Simply put, Slashdot brings out the worst in you.
Not only that, but important ones like zvt and gmc crash frequently...
Gnome is an example of what *not* to do in a GUI...
Basically most of the license is FUD IMO. There is no way you can aquire other people's copyright implicitly like Troll tries to do here. Yes, the only thing they can try to sue you for is violating their copyright. However, as they make it widely distributed, you are likely to get away with "good faith". Suing isn't particularly profitable either... Shrinked wrapped licenses that I haven't read does not hold water... Now, if I signed something then the situation could be different. I never read licenses that I don't sign or explicitly ask for, by principle...
Your patches have to be distributed *separate* from the original source; this means not bundling.
KDE looks a hell of a lot more consistent, usuable, and friendly...
Gnome looks like something a NextStep programmer who takes too much crack and is partially blind would create.
The beauty of GNOME is only a phosphor stripe thick.
KDE is not just ugly , it is slow.
And it is not in the true spirit of
open source , it is just highway to
comercialisation.Some people just in
hurry to make money out of it.
It's time to go back to 1st grade. This infighting is so damn stupid, it makes me sick. WHO GIVES A SHIT! If KDE is better then use it and shut the hell up. If GNOME is better, do the same.
Have something constructive to say? then say it. This beating down each others DE is counterproductive. Grow up kids!
Please reread what you quoted. Your in-house proprietary code is only subject to part c. if it is distributed. Qt isn't any more restrictive with what you can do with your own code than the GPL.
After looking at both KDE and GNOME, i think both suck in th UI as does Windows and MacOS. OS/2 isn't that great either. BeOS looks ok but since I've never used that and I've used all of the above mention I can't really tell if it is a major improvement.
this is because Troll Tech still wants to have someone to sell their toolkit to...
and, until Mozilla makes a stable release, IE is beating the PANTS off of Netscape. I'll be on the IE side of things, thank you very much.
(p.s. IE is faster than Netscape 4.x)
much of GNOME is (c) Free Software Foundation. don't like that? uh oh, you'd better stop using gcc! and bash! and lots of other stuff
Every time I've read one of them speak in public, they squeeze in a GNOME flame, no matter how irrelevant it might be...
It works fine for me, and is quite fast...
mosfet@jorsm.com
Haven't you read teh Miqueal faq on the GNOME site? He clearly says that the GNOME people like the KDE people.
Enlightenment is a windowmanager with very :) KDE is not interesting.And the media
heavy graphics. Enlightenment with gnome
included , starts much faster than KDE.
But not just that , the applikations run
faster too.KDE is a very stable , but slow
windowmanager with many stable applikations
but real open source people just dont seem
to understand that this perfekt windowmanager
exist
seems to react in the same way.I have tested
all the windowmanagers for Linux. Gnome is
my choice.Its is almost impossible to compile
Gnome source , but i dont care. KDE code was not
easy either , before 1.0
KDE starts faster than WM for me, much less E...
mosfet@jorsm.com
I put all my code under the LGPL, including
non-library code. Troll Tech should either do
the same or just go away.
The LGPL lets Open Source and proprietary software
work together, with neither one abusing the other.
You can link to my code (you can use it) but you
can't include my code (you can't own it).
He has flamed the KDE developers every chance he has gotten...
Are you really suggesting that how something looks is more important than how it works?
Your wish is under construction. Go ahead and
write your code now; you will get your easy
printing feature in the next major release.
It don't work but damn it's pretty ;-)
I do not write proprietary software, so you can't
claim that I only take without giving. In fact,
I have written quite a bit of LGPL code.
The GPL and QPL both abuse proprietary vendors.
The BSD licence is asking to get abused.
Only the LGPL is fair to both sides.
I have tried KDE 1.1 . I have even tried :) :( Very boring. Newbie stuff !
KDE CVS code (it compiled without errors).
Well , i perhaps must use a stopwatch next time
i start my windowmanager.Yes i was realy
impressed ower the differens between 1.0 and 1.1
in KDE. The stability and everything is great.But i just run my e + gnome anyway.Strange
I just feel running KDE is like running Win98
or something
With KDE Linux , goes mainstream like everything
else.Hope Gnome can do it different.
Or wait until the KDE with Qt2.0 is stable. I'm helping with the theme code for that and it is *nice*.
I think it was a good idea to focus on stability and functionality before themeing...
This shows one of the reasons I like the KDE project so much. They have their priorities straight.
mosfet@jorsm.com
Our enemys desktop is also good looking ;)
and have the world domination
and it has worse coding than Gnome!
Strange world?
That's what KDE is all about. Bringing good design to the end users.
The Minix OS has a license much like the QPL.
There have been many patches to add great
features, but nobody can distribute modified
source. As the public patch collection grew,
conflicts became impossible to resolve. If you
have never hacked with patches, try it!
Patches are only a means of transport.
Hmm I'm not so sure, in an SRPM the source and the patches ARE separate - the patch has not been applied yet and they are separate files.
If (if) you can themify it , KDE can be
the no1 Linux windowmanager.But the main
reason for me to run Linux , besides hacking
and coding , is to have a GUI that no one else have , and its not easy to make that in KDE.
http://www.jorsm.com/~mosfet/qtnext-highcolor.gif
http://www.jorsm.com/~mosfet/kde-plat.gif
mosfet@jorsm.com
If everyone said C++ was great (they did 10 years ago),
would you use it? I guess so.
You are too dumb to value the things that work.
C++ is (was) trendy, flashy, exciting! Gee, that
sounds a lot like Microsoft Windows 95.
What a joke...
can we even produce quality software anymore? the rest of the world is taking the lead in linux, while MS continues to spread through our schools and even our military (smart ships indeed).
while the majority of american companies and programmers eagerly await windows2000, and agonize over the issues surrounding the DOJ lawsuit, the rest of the world can embrace linux and produce the best distributions, toolkits and window managers.
how can america hold up against the european model of government + universities + business, all working together toward a common goal?
oh well, i guess we'll just have to bow to billgatus, our latest "rockefeller" -- or "forbes" or whatever. it's hard to keep track of all our billionaire heroes.
thanks to our the government and education systems -- many administrators, beaureaucrats and military leaders are heavily vested in microsoft, i'm sure -- microsoft is rapidly expanding into our "smart"(?) warships, military bases and classrooms.
i'm not implying any kind of american superiority here, but it looks like we're falling behind while the rest of the world in embracing linux.
is america willing to sacrifice whatever technical lead, parity, edge (whatever) it's software industry has so one bunghole in redmond can be the first trillionaire?
Well , QT widgets can have a realy nice look too.
So perhaps its just a marketing thing in the end.
But no technology sells itself these days and
Gnome Redhat makes the headlines.In Europe it
seems to be different.
I'm sick of ALL zealots including Linux ones. Some things suit people just fine, if they want GNOME let them use it, you want KDE fine. You want a Mac, you want Windows, and so forth. I and the rest of the internet don't want to hear usless crap. We want fact: bugs, features, pros, cons.
If Mark is so smart why didn't he write under his own name?
I'm from the US, and yes RH's and Gnome's marketing has started to pull away attention from quality of the code. This hurts OpenSource in a big way, when we start marketing like commercial companies.
Those on the KDE team now are starting to recognize that they cannot just rely on stability and functionality to sell itself like everyone thought it would. It's a shame, but we will all adapt.
mosfet@jorsm.com
silly rabbit, tricks are for kids.
There are plenty of KDE/QT developers right here in the US. We won't fall behind ;-)
No we don't all know. All anyone every hears on the subject KDE vs GNOME is that one or the other sucks. Hardly anyone gives any good reason or reasons at all why one is better especially here.
And what is all that crap about Christians. a religion believes in a certian ideology. The person following that religion believes the same ideology. Pragmatism does play into the religious order, but into the person.
Hey - there's nothing wrong with anonymous coward generally (phew - I'm covered ;) ) but if you're going to post a comment bagging our hosts, at least have the decency to put a name by it.
:)
If you don't like it you don't have to post.
If you do but want it improved, put your name.
Otherwise you could just be another of those phantom-Redmonders, attempting to destabilise our utopia, right?
- Oo -
> 2,57
+++Patches on
---Troll Tech Qt
+++patches suck.
Oh great. Now everybody is fucked up.
Look, basic aesthetics:
Stop using shadow effects for window button icons.
They are hard to see and stupid looking.
Don't put useless crap in the middle of the
scroll bar thumb. I see a hole (what for?) in
one image and a MacOS thingy in the other. Eew.
Gradients do not belong anywhere. Don't put them
accross button faces. Don't put them accross
title bars. Think! You just made one side hard
to read and you fucked up the subtle 3d effect.
Motif drop-down combo boxes are confusing and
they look like shit. Gtk and Qt both copy this?
Pardon me while I puke...
I wasted a whole day downloading the above files. dpkg -i *.deb gives screens and screens of errors and fails miserably. I've fucking tried everything and I'm at the end of the my rope.
My recommendation: STAY AWAY FROM THE ABOVE DEBS. THEY DO NOT WORK AND YOU WILL WASTE YOUR TIME. COMPILE YOUR OWN GNOME.
KDE is looking better all the time.
The correct terminology for different widget looks is styles. If you want to know what themes are, go look at your closest Windows machine.
Nah, he only hung out on #kde to try and find new
gnome developers.
The way widgets are drawn is the style, and the set of pixmaps it uses is the theme.
Thus you can have both a Next and Platinum style, which both use the same theme(pixmaps).
When talking to people I usually just use the term "theme" since most people get confused otherwise...
mosfet@jorsm.com
Comeon guys, we should convirge, not dirvirge, our efforts. Linux needs a desktop now, not 2 subpar desktops. KDE is definitely ahead of GNOME, so it would seem logical to use that as a base. If all the effort that had been put into GNOME had been put into KDE, we would have a desktop that would be easier and more functional than MacOS or Win9x. Which would you rather have, the aforementioned desktop, or two similiar desktops with the only difference being their base toolkit. COME ON!
If there was any hope of cooperation Miguel ruined it by spreading FUD about KDE at places like ZDNet.
Plus, Gnome never tried to be compatible with anything besides itself.
What are you talking about?
It's the 1.0 release of GNOME!
If I install RPMs of it and stuff breaks and crashes, well... That's the point, nothing should break or crash.
If stuff does, why is it a 1.0 release?
eh?
uselinux@email.com
Merge? You have to be kidding. The Gnome project has way too big of an ego to do anything sensable like that.
Plus, RH would not allow it since Marc doesn't like KDE.
gmc crashes misrablely and the best you can manage is:
"GNOME rocks..."
Try again.
uselinux@email.com
Users bitch about not having themes, and then bitch when they get them.
If you don't like the pixmaps define your own... The whole idea behind both widget styles and themes is customization.
mosfet@jorsm.com
it bothers me greatly.
Everyone else in the world using and learning Linux while all schools, businesses, and, apparently, military facilities in the U.S. use Wintendo. Ouch.
Makes you wonder about the next Millennium...
uselinux@email.com
They have posted the 2.0 source.
YESS!!! I Finally say I love you Troll Man! Thank you for code and a license that works! All the voices have united and are shouting in unison!
Anything posted after this is by cheap imposter Anomynous Cowards!
they are! they are tied in with qt, but deny it! and qt refuses to gpl their libs...but they seem to like and use gnu tools, don't they?
KDE and QT are evil and refuse to back gnome!
Without a C binding, everyone has to agree on the same C++ compiler (even with SWIG), so we can never take advantage of better code generation saner languages could make possible. A foundation object standard should be language-independent (funcalls and pass-by-value are pretty much universal, where layouts for static inheritance and polymorphism vary widely) and needs to be specified right down to the bits, a la IIOP, JVM, or (D)COM.
And Gnome ist tied to Gtk *sigh* -- no point here.
...
Ever seen the announcement of KDE 1.1 on the Gnome-webpages? And now look at www.kde.org/news_dyn.html
You expected version x.0 of *anything* to be stable? Bwahaha!
If version numbers can be expected to mean anything at all, they mean 42.0 has more new code than usual, hasn't been out on shakedown long enough to be debugged thoroughly, and isn't as compatible with 41.9 as it probably should be. This isn't a slam against GNOME - just the inevitable consequences of reaching big milestones.
Dude, what's wrong with using Gnu tools?? And of course KDE does not back Gnome. The Gnome project has actively spread FUD and disinformation about KDE since it's beginning.
Thankfully, the Gnome team cannot code nearly as well as they can hype, so KDE still has the advantage.
What we need are apps that can easily be used together in unexpected ways, a GUI equivalent of pipelines. "Integration" is the opposite - pieces that have been pre-combined in inflexible ways and are difficult to use separately.
IMHO one of the goals of Free Software is to let you use what you want and hack it up as you like. "You have to use this code fork of this one C++ compiler, or you're totally fscked" would be an utter disaster, the kind of fascism that brought us M$ - no experimenting with better languages, better distributed object models, better code generators....
I develop commercial software and I demand everybody to pay for my effort and I FEEL MORALLY OBBLIGED TO BUY THE DEVEOPING TOOL I USE TO MAKE MY PRODUCTS, I understand you need a dignity also to feel ashame, so please shut up and try to let us to forget about you if you can
Maybe people that bitch about spelling errors :)
;)
should spend more time doing something useful...
(Hey kiddies! Did *I* make any spelling or grammar errors?
What if I link a QPL application with Oracle or Informix. Have Oracle and Informix to give me the source code?
Or is it rather that the QPL means very little because I write my own library and then I can sell this product (commercially, binary) giving a very small main program as source code away (all the functions calling QT as source? The rest of functions calling the database may well be hidden in a library)
not. He should not spread FUD like
http://webserv.vnunet.com/www_user/plsql/pkg_vnu _nn.homepage?p_story=77532
about KDE. This is soooo childish.
Am I the only one who doesn't use either? When I want to run a program I type the name in an xterm. I mean, I suppose interapp communcation is neat and all, but if I have QT and the gnome libraries installed, then I can run all the good apps and still just use fvwm without taking up my precious real-estate.
Taybin
I had until I read the article below nothing
u _nn.homepage?p_story=77532
againts him. No I will no more than ignore him.
http://webserv.vnunet.com/www_user/plsql/pkg_vn
To say such things about other opens source
projects is really bad manner. He deserves no respect!
developers with URLs where they flame GNOME.
I honestly did not notice this.
There is a difference between giving facts and pointless
flaming. I did not think I was flaming.
for Python and C. The Python bindings even support KDE specific widgets and are used
for KOffice. There are also the native C++ bindings, of course.
GTK has bindings for around a dozen languages, and all of them work *right now*. What are you waiting for?
For Gnome to get usefull.
> ... type the name in an xterm...
Thats ok (I am xterm centric myself), but does your mother want to do that?
I have no time to hack with gtk , i want a 100%
good api thats mature and works nicely...
Sure I could contribute to the effort, but hello mcfly, i have to get my app ported and I cant waste 10 months while gtk people twiddle their thumbs.
MS might be crap at internal OS make ups, but their $$$ do make a good gui and GUi-API thats flexible/usefull and easy.
Perhaps if Gtk had decent docs it would be better, but seriously the docs are dog shit to say the least, as im sure even the gtk people agree, compare against any other standard.
Fuck you man, if i wanna grab X GPL or QPL source and improve it and use it in house with out telling the world , its up to me, so fuck off and go shove your dick in Hitler you nazi commie wanker.
Thats not FREE, i want freedom, and that includes to do secret in house stuff, anyhow, like you would know if I did secret stuff in house, ahhahahahhahahahha go suffer dude, i can do inhouse shit and you would never ever know because ur a looser. Sure OSS is fine and all but dont preach to all how to conduct their lives. I wish if i may do what the hell I like.
Like I said, as if you would know any how, what are you gona do? persuit 500000 people?
Its ironic that the windows api is more free than any other licence, MS doesnt require me to pay $$ to release a commercial app using Windows APIs. In that sense QPL or whatever so called free-4-use lib isnt that free afterall is it.
Its $FREE$ for endusers, and forces $FREEDOM$ but it prevents commercialization/enterprise businesses from starting.
Until we live in money free society in StarTrek world, gpl/qpl whatever will be limited.
If KDE dies and gnome is left, do i have a choice????? poooo
Nothing wrong with commercial software, sometimes free stuff is 10x crappier and slower and/or buggier incomplete and utter crud
btw www.zinc.com is another GUI api thats ok, but it sits ontop of Motif GRRRRR , tell em to fix it for Xlib or something, it does look good tho
behold soon, an easy wrapper to gtk to make it 5000x easier to use, easier then playing quake!
*;)"
Personaly I think its nothing to do with C/C++, its just a crap API/design (tho objects are ok)
u ck()
The function names/design is crap, C++ might have made it nicer "win = new GtkWindow( x,y,w,h, "title" );"
but really, it wouldnt be that much better.
gtk_lets_make_really_long_api_call_names_that_s
Still, for my own development work, I'll go with Gtk (switching from Tk). Qt is too closely tied to C++, and for Gtk, there is an easy way for me to deliver free applications not only on Linux but also on Windows.
The close ties of Qt with a commercial entities and the painful process of getting to this point also make Qt seem less attractive.
In the long run, I'm pretty certain that Gtk will be much more popular than Qt. Among other things, Gtk is being used for Mozilla and an AWT port.
I just hope that the start working on standards
together, so that, say, gnumeric and
Koffice-spreadsheety-thingimy will use -exactly-
the same file format.
And also, I would like to see them get things
sorted so that GNOME is KDE compliant and vice
versa -- so that if you launch a GNOME application
on a KDE desktop, then it will integrate nicely
with KDE, and similarly for KDE in GNOME. The
user should NEVER be forced to make a choice
between the two over mixing and matching.
I would hope that the first step would entail
standardising their object models (neither
relying on GTK/GNOME/KDE/Qt, but have a separate
library that interfaces with CORBA)
no way! I can't agree.
No, there have been no court cases. There have been several attempts at violating the GPL, but the companies involved all caved in pretty quickly when they were informed they were about to get sued. Since the FSF's lawyers have gone over the license pretty throughly, and I suspect the violators lawyers have too, it would likely stand up in court. At least they've made the choice to free the code or buy a separate license rather than even make an attempt at getting out of it.
So, what are you going to do? Convince the C diehards that C++ can produce fast unbloated code? Convince the C++ diehards that C is just as productive? Convince the GPL diehards that we should just dump the 10 years worth of GPL code out there, because the Troll Tech license makes it illegal to combine GPL code with Qt? Convince the KDE people they should rewrite KDE to use a GPL compatible library? Dump all the GIMP code, the XEmacs code, and all other application code under GPL and start over from the beginning, just because Troll Tech chose a license that cannot be legally combined with GPL code? Or force the KDE developers to work with the not quite finihsed C++ bindings on GTK?
Just face it, you wont *get* the GNOME developers to work on KDE. Or the KDE developers to work on GNOME.
The beauty of X11 is that you are not restricted to just one widget set. You can use KDE apps alongside other applications and window managers (no one will mind ;-)
Making apps interoperate correctly is what integration means...
It's not, as it doesn't allow you to distribute modified versions under the same license as the original: you also have to give a license to the trolls so that they can sell your stuff for money.
Furthermore, it's a horribly arrogant license, since you are not allowed to distribute modifications except as patches, but any program that links library (most programs are way bigger and more important than just the GUI library) must allow users to distribute modified versions.
Not that this is enforcable, though, since distributing a program that links with the library, but does not include the library, is not a derived work and thus not subject to the license, even though the trolls arrogantly claim so.
This license is a horrid piece of shit.
Well, because the GPL isn't that easy to understand every aspect of, and because RMS, being the creator of the GPL has the next-to-final say about what it does mean (court has final say).
But I think I made my own opinion clear. The QPL is still not GPL compliant, mostly due to section 3, section 3b and section 6c, which appear to be further restrictions beyond the GPL. That means no GPL code can be legally used in a Qt application (and due to section 6c, it may be impossible even in inhouse projects, since the right of the initial developer to request a copy can force you to distribute the undistributable combination of GPL and QPL code, meaning Troll Tech can force you to violate either one or the other of the licenses if they want).
Neither does Qt qualify under system library clause in the GPL since it is not by any means an essential OS component under any Linux or Unix distribution.
Actually, the core components are fairly stable. GMC does have some remaining problems, but GMC isnt 'released-1.0'. Panel and other core components havent crashed for me since early 0.99. If they *do* exhibit problems, make sure you dont have any old versions of libraries lurking around, since that will usually mess things up.
Agreed! Lets hope they use a sane format like XML or some other SGML stuff, so it's also easy to convert to whatever :).
:).
And lets hope they support several DnD protocols, including the Motif/CDE ones and we'll have the best of all worlds
This is not meant to denigrate the hard work of all the developers who've worked on KDE and GNOME.
The amazing aspect of the recent release of GNOME 1.0 and the revision of KDE's license to make KDE "free" software is not that there are two free desktops; the amazing aspect is that Microsoft can get away with charging so much for software that's lower quality than what a small band of volunteers can put together in their spare time.
You make that sound like RMS is in this for self-aggrandizement. While he is not totally selfless, his work speaks more eloquently than any free-software spokesman could. If anyone deserves the title, he does.
Ignore personalities. Many great achievers are repellent in person, or do vile things. Just look at what he's done.
Miguel does. That's a little different than a user whining on a mailing list.
Qt has that sort-of intangible/not quite
look about it.
GTK/GNOME on the otherhand seems very polished.
It's a pity - because I prefer C++, and
GNOME code is very C-centric, with a bastardized
C++ interface in which one has to resort
to C tricks to accomplish any real work.
No fault of the GTK-- guys, they've done
a great job with what they had to work with.
> QT is perhaps great development environment
but Gnome is a pice of art....Great!
To be honest, I'd rather have a working desktop, than something to look at for a few minutes, before it crashes.
> We must have a GUI with a MUCH better look than Windows.
KDE _does_ look better than windows! And Motif Widgets like those in GNOME look most ugly. You can't really tell anyone that Motif widgets look nice. No way.
> Users i talk with , say about KDE:
> "It looks like Windows , why change!" And they have right. Why change?
Ask them about GNOME: "It crashes like Windows, why change!"
> Because its free? It doesnt work that way! It has to be much much better.
Yes, and KDE offers a nicer look than Windows, but the most important thing is, it offers a _heap_ of more stability. You can do everything without having programs crashing and rebooting 3 times a day. _That_ is the difference.
> And Gnome is the the only GUI that can compete with Windows.
Maybe it can compete in # of crashes a day, but nothing more. Not everybody wants a Desktop looking like Quake, there are a few people out there, that want to do some _work_ with it!
-gis
I'm all for the gnome manifesto and using free libraries, however, I have problems with coding
in C...I'm used to the idea of "classes", especially for a gui app. Am I just stupid (well probablY) but is it a BITCH to try to get gtk-- to compile? How are you supposed to upgrade egcs WITHOUT destroying gcc 2.7.2....I'd like to code gtk apps with gtk--, as opposed to running off to QT
Thankfully? I'd hope they could code better than they can hype, so Guhnowm would be a better product.
Huge controls, immature icons... Gnome looks like the interface of a video game console - not a professional desktop environment.
gnome-bin sez it depends on libgnome32 and libgnome32 sez it depends on gnome-bin. it's absolutely ridiculous. if i try to install both at the same time, they list screenful of dependencies. if i try to install everything at the same time, it fails miserably.
the KDE packages, on the other hand, are a piece of cake and install in under 5 minutes.
In my opinion, Qt will not become an essential system component even if included in the distributions. The system component exception is meant for essentail components like libc and CC and the kernel, not the various GUI toolkits available. The motif exception was perhaps not so good, but at least there was the rationale that Motif shipped with every system and was declared by all the vendors to be a standard core component. Qt isnt isnt even remotely close.
While some, like Microsoft, would like to define Operating System to be anything they ship up to and including Word, the reality is slightly different. And making a GUI library qualify as a system component as soon as some Joe Average GPL Violator puts out his own distribution and says 'look, essential system library!' isnt a good idea.
Yep, that's right, KDE is the Win95 of the Unix world. Look at the damned layout, the widgets. It reminds me so much of Win95 it makes me sick. It's not an ideological thing.. GNOME sucks worse than KDE but KDE sucks worse than twm IMHO. I just cannot see ANY point to using either of them. I'll stick to plain old WindowMaker thankyouverymuch.
Um, no. The next section allows distribution of modified binaries if you make your modifications available under the QPL (thus giving the trolls license to use your code in non-free QT). Yes, you must provide the complete source to the package, but since the only way you can provide this source is under the terms of section 3, you must give it to them as the original source, and separate patches.
Which allows distribution of modified binaries (not source) as long as the source modifications are available. The only way you can make the source modifications available is with patches. The license is designed to stifle non Troll development. Unless you're planning to develop using the binaries instead of the source, they pretty much prevent extensive changes. Now, if we had a machine which executed malformed C++, then we could claim the source was machine executable...
Um, section 4 only gives permission to distribute MACHINE EXECUTABLE BINARIES. So maybe that's the word I don't understand. Show me your malformed C++ executing machine.
It requires you to provide the complete sources, but doesn't give you permission to distribute them other than the rights given in section 3, which requires them to be distributed separately (as patches).
If you really think I'm misreading it, show me word for word what you think it means. Or maybe you need to read it more carefully instead of assuming other people can't read.
You can license products under both the GPL and something else. Cygnus does this, for example.
I'm reading it each time I see your post here. What makes you think section 4 gives you any rights other than to distribute modified binaries whose modifications are availble *only as patches* under the QPL?
I wouldnt believe everything the press says. Anyone who has ever dealt with journalists know they have a tendency to 'edit for brevity'. And tag on whatever they feel like will sell more ads/not go over the heads of their audience/etc. For all we know, Miguel might have gone into a deep technical debate about exactly what he considers to be the issues, but on ZDNet that would be the first thing to edit out. They far prefer 'It Sucks' to 'Well, the design of the CORBA IDL in the...'.
:). That's what really sucks :).
And, hey, it's not the deep technical discussions that generate slashdot banner ads either
You'll do as you like, of course, but I don't see how anyone could call "we'll use your code, but you can't use ours" fairness.
lets follow your logic here (pretend this is an SAT question).
twm > KDE > gnome
sure you really meant to say that?
I notice that the gnome supporters are rather free with their slagging of KDE. Yet, when they get some in return their stock answer seems to be: "hey, lighten up, it's a joke. Use whatever desktop you want. It's about choice." I don't think so--it's clear that the Gnome project supporters are deeply hostile to KDE. Why? Because the only worthwhile currency in the open source world is prestige at doing the job well. Tell me which project lived up to that spirit? Who got it right? And who crapped on the floor?
Huge controls, immature icons... Gnome looks like the interface of a video game console - not a professional desktop environment.
That might be true, but I'm willing to bet that GNOME will overtake KDE not because it is better not because it is better looking, not because it is more stable but because it is more in sync with the ideology of being completely and totally non commercial software.
Linux totally sucked until 1.2 in my opinion. Sure it was Unix, sure it was way the hell more stable than Windows, sure it had X and Doom ran on it, but it was a bitch to work with. GNOME is a bit of a bitch to work with. It's not stable either. In many many ways it is inferior to its competition but it will be improved until it becomes the best - or at least that is what I'm betting and I think history may even support my conclusion. I'm not going to bitch and moan and whine about it not being perfect, I can wait. GNOME will never die if only for the reason that it is GPL'ed, I bet HURD uses it, I bet it will eventually become central to FreeBSD sometime as well (but a bit into the future).
Incremental improvements will make GNOME more palitable over time and the next time I get time, I'll be coding in gtk.
You've got an extremely valid point!
In all of the flaming, no one has brought this up yet.
Eyecandy is nice, but a nice 'Ergonomic' interface is conductive to additional productivity, most surely. I'm not saying you can't get work done, and done well, with flashy colorful graphics and Open-GL buttons, but it's not very eye friendly.
I played around with some background & window button 'themes' and all I managed to do was strain my eyes (although it looked damn cool). I was less productive then when I just had the standard KDE look with Windows 95 widgets enabled and a nice 'desert red' theme for my window bars.
But, anyway, ergonomics is important and something ergonomic ought to be the default for any DE. You can always change the settings if you want to be flashy, but why should you have to change them just to get stuff done?
uselinux@email.com
My thoughts exactly. I have used OS/2 and BeOS and I *hate*
Win95's interface. KDE is even worse in some ways... like the way it has
"shortcuts" *and* symlinks. And I think an 'integrated' WWW browser is
just a bad idea.
I am happy to continue using my simple icewm setup under Linux, and use BeOS
for Web browsing and word processing.
The GPL is so ambiguous and blurry that the discussion over its meaning is nearly as old as the license itself.
Opinions by a couple of (European) lawyers I heard of:
- The GPL wouldnt hold in a real trial. Its just a mess.
- Compatibility: Either the GPL is compatible to the X, (new) BSD and QPL 1.0 licenses, or it is not compatible to anything else at all.
As for LGPL: Anything goes, as long as you just link to the code (i.e. dont incorporate it), and make modifications possible. Disadvantage: Encourages proprietary sw.
QPL 1.0: Like the GPL, just that you can legally link with other OSS licenses. Very clear.
Proprietary users can buy the right to use it via the professional license (with the GPL, you need a dual licensing scheme for that, like Cygnus does sometimes).
It is likely that RMS would prefer the QPL to the LGPL, judging by his recent essay about the use of GPL vs LGPL for licenses.
Interestingly, the best Gnome setup Ive seen has been in SuSE 6.0. Its still Gnome 0.3, but it works right out of the box and you can easily choose between KDE and Gnome upon login (kdm).
What astonished me is that it was much better integrated than in RedHat, where I would have expected the best solution.
The conclusion: SuSE seem to be the best packagers around. Id wait for them to release Gnome 1.0 packages, and you can be sure theyll work...
BTW, why dont you just emulate the look of Gnome in KDE. Take over/adapt the icons, use a decent KWM theme and maybe some sounds, this should really help.
Besides that, KDE 1.2 with QT 2 widget styles isnt too far away, and then there will surely be a Gnome-Look style for KDE.
As RMS has stated recently, he doesnt like the LGPL for libs (let alone normal apps), its just a compromise.
While I agree with you that the GPL has many problems with regard to linking, we still need a license that allows linking to *all* forms of free software, but disallows proprietary use (use RMS prefers it).
The QPL is one of the best license of that kind I know of.
If you want to write proprietary programs for KDE without paying to TrollTech, you can still use another toolkit. (Yes, thats possible! Take Tcl/Tk with K.tk or (soon) fltk as example)
this is one of the things that turns people off linux.
....a Reluctant Windows User
Heh, compaired to XFce, KDE and GNOME are of little value. They are pretty and all; nice, fancy animated icons, theames that totally lower productivity and other junk like that. I just wish they would simpley do what they _should_ be doing instead of the myriad of other useless things that all take away from the concept of using a computer as a tool and not a video game/music video player/toy.
>video game/music video player/toy
Hah hah, my computer is a video game/music video player/toy. What else is it good for? Work is boring.
All this talk about licenses is making me yawn !!! When are you dweebs gonna learn that all software is free? Can you say warez? Never paid a dime for any software . . . well now come to think of it I think I bought QuakeII, but they deserved their money.
I will use the best environment available, period, all other concerns are not worth the keystrokes you blowhards keep spewing. Getta life, jeez. Sorry for the frustration, but I come to this site to learn about new developments and all I read about anymore is bullshit.
Rodney: Can't we all just get along?
Sorry KDE developers , Gnome is here to stay. ,EPL or what ewer.IF a company wants to make open .Use GPL next time or just dont do it!
If Troll tech have changed their license earlier
it might perhaps turned out in another direction.
Using GPL of course.We dont want any QPL , XPL
source Linux applikations they shall use GPL or
else make a commercial applikation.Using another license
It uses LPGL, which is worse. Please get your facts straight...
We can only hope....
Ceep cool,
:-)
it seems everyone wants what the "other one" has.
Here in germany the universities want more and
more the american modell because of its modern
concept. Government also orders thousands of
WinNT machines after a short visit of Mr. Gates.
It's not greener over here. Perhaps it will be
if we really get Linux and Open Technology in
general into the big business and gov.
Greetings from Bavaria.
Gosh,
There are problems with Gnome, that make me really feel it is still a "beta" product. I really do wish it were otherwise!
Still, you must not be looking hard enough for the language bindings, etc. I can't stop by FRESHMEAT without tripping over another one...
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
So KDE is better because the preliminary debs don't work for you? That makes sense. Not.
Obviously, Gnome people give their rats asses. If you aren't only using their product, you're Satan.
Good lord, what's up the ass of so many folks here nowadays? Bitching over which has Corba first, then saying, "Well, it's still better in Gnome, so nyah." If you can't provide any sort of constructive criticism about the products involved, to make them all better for us, then shut the fudge up (pardon the language :)).
I just want to have MANY wonderful, useful, stable applications on my Linux box. Not one set of products from one group of people. And face it, with world domination "just around the corner," (Linus at Linuxworld), we need programs that users can use and love. Joe User won't give a rats ass about whether Gnome or KDE started using Corba first, or that Troll announced this QPL a couple days after Gnome's announcement. They just want office apps and all that they can type their love letters in.
I guess the only program that's completely free would be Golgotha. So, let's design an OS around it and live in completely-free land.
3. You may make modifications to the Software and distribute your modifications, in a form that is separate from the Software, such as patches.
I thought Troll said they were going to get rid of the patch clause? If this is going to remain in there, then this license is no improvement. It's still GPL-incompatible, and so it still remains illegal to distribute binaries of KDE linked against Qt (unless KDE get permission from all the copyright holders of the code they've used to provide an exception for Qt).
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Well, it's not much of an improvement. The language has been clarified a bit, but the major problems that make it GPL-incompatible are still there. Take for example:
3. You may make modifications to the Software and distribute your modifications, in a form that is separate from the Software, such as patches.
That alone makes it GPL-incompatible, so distributing KDE binaries linked to Qt remains illegal.
The part that lets Troll use your modifications as part of their commercially licensed product (forcing you to allow them to change the license on your code) isn't too nice either.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Not everybody used OOP, and OOP is not the be-all end-all of programming metholodogy. It has many uses, but is not desirable for all types of programs.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
No, Mozilla allows you to distribute changes to the actual code. Qt still requires you to distribute them as patches.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Can anyone comment on whether it's now legal for non-authors (copyright holders) to ship binaries linked against Qt?
Okay, I admit. I like C.
All the worst linker errors and compiler incompatibilites I've seen are C++-specific, and OO design is just a pain when working on a small project.
GTK's design is beautiful. I get the advantages of C (general beauty, easy linking, compiler compatibility, better code, etc) with a toolkit that has the advantages which OO (admittedly) has for such large heierarchial (sp?) projects. GTK is designed to work the way I think, which is more than can be said about most widget sets I've used.
So perhaps there are different philosophies out there. So perhaps folks who think differently in creating their software prefer Qt's C++-oriented design. I like C; I like GTK; I intend to continue using both. (* - However, I may learn Python and try its GTK bindings).
...IMHO, quite good. The functions are all given descriptive names, and the use of casting macros makes it pretty clear just what each argument's supposed to be.
I've used Glade a few times and always found its output good. I can hardly imagine that code created by a human trying to make it readable would be less so.
Posted by ReimerBehrends:
... c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items, then you must supply one."
A few comments:
The prerequisite for 6c to apply very obviously is that you actually distribute the items. If you don't distribute them, you can keep the source to yourself. Note:
"6. These items, _when distributed_, must meet the following requirements.
Note that you can distribute items without making them available to the general public, in which case Troll reserves the right to request a copy.
The term "machine-readable source code" is most likely used to prevent people from giving away printed copies of the source code, which are of little use to anybody. I agree, though, that it could be construed to allow for obfuscated source code.
Look, KDE and GNOME are not commecial products. They are not "competing" with one another. Each group has its own philosophies and design goals, and each wishes the other group the absolute best. Why can't people get this into their thick skulls???
If you like GNOME, use it!
If you like KDE, use it!
If you like both (as I do) USE BOTH!
had a lot to do with the licensing, but to be
completely honest, had a lot to do with the icons.
gears are better than feet
AFAIK, one can sell closed-source apps that dynamically link against LGPL'd libs, such as GTK.
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
Printing? KOM/Openparts? Not in at least two years (for GNOME, that is. readily available for KDE)
Well the gnome-print stuff appears to already exist. Perhaps it's not finished, but two years? I doubt it.
As for KOM/Openparts, why the hell would Gnome want it? Gee, another component object model.. just what the world needs. From what I understand, Gnome is using an object model based on ILU, a commonly accepted standard. So you criticize Gnome for using the standard as opposed to supporting the thing KDE made up? Why doesn't KDE support Gnome's object model?
It seems logical for any company writing software that's in any way related to Linux to make announcements during the week of LinuxWorld Expo while the media is paying attention.
In other words, they're not stupid.
TedC
I guess I'll have to do a closer reading of
http://www.troll.no/qpl... I don't see how it's significantly
different from the GPL right now.
Anyone got some insights?
-K
http://www.red-bean.com/kfogel
--Phil (Remember, "commercial" and "proprietary" are not the same thing.)
355/113 -- Not the famous irrational number PI, but an incredible simulation!
Yes and no. You can distribute KDE binaries, if QT is considered to se something "normally distributed with the major components of the operating system on which the executable runs." That depends on the distribution. Debian will probably include it, since it looks like it's DFSG-free.
OTOH, without that loophole, it's not compatible because of the patch clause. That means you can't share code between GPLed programs and QPLed ones.
--Phil (And I still think GTK looks better, but that's just my own opinion.)
355/113 -- Not the famous irrational number PI, but an incredible simulation!
Well, for one thing, I don't think the QPL is as good as the GPL. The QPL still has that patch clause in it, and I don't like that. (And I posted a nice rant about it shortly after the new QPL was announced to be in development, so i don't feel like writing all that again.) As for the in-house releases, I'm not sure if you're right, and I'm not sure if I think that it's an improvement. The GPL mostly concerns itself with the distribution of software. My impression has been that it strives to preovide all users of the software with the same freedoms. If you don't distribute the program, you can't restrict anyone's freedom. That section of the QPL also seems only to apply to distribution. Section 6 states, "These items, when distributed, are subject to the following requirements". IOW, the restrictions only apply if the programs are distributed. If a QPLed program is distributed to a restricted group of people, they all have permission to modify the program and distribute the program (with patches) to others, but the original author may demand a copy of the modified program for himself. With the GPL, all of the users have the same freedoms granted to the distributor, but the original author cannot demand a copy of the program.
It just feels wrong to me to force someone to give you a program just because that program started life as your idea. The programmer just has to allow the users the same freedoms that he exercized in making his modifications. I suppose the distinction to me is between sharing and demanding. I think it's fair that someone who has benefited from other people sharing give his users that same freedoms he enjoyed. I don't think it's fair for someone to say, "You used my code as a basis for your program, and you gave the users of your program the same freedoms I gave you, but you didn't give my a copy of your program, so I'm going to make you give me one."
I know this is a horribly muddled argument. If anyone has a more concrete argument (either for or against), feel free to post. I do applaud Troll Tech. This is definitely a step in the direction of freedom
--Phil (I bet you're not surprised that I'm sticking with GNOME.)
(Actually, I'm using just using GNOME until GnuStep is useable.)
355/113 -- Not the famous irrational number PI, but an incredible simulation!
No, it's in the new license, too. Section 3:
The modifications must be separate from the original work. This makes it really cumbersome for someone other than the original author to distribute massively modified versions of the software.--Phil (Unless someone can come up with a "form that is separate from the Software" that makes forking easy.)
355/113 -- Not the famous irrational number PI, but an incredible simulation!
True, and it's also the KDE crowd who's pretty much behind all the RedHat bashing we've been seeing.
C++ worked to fix many of C's shortcomings. As a result, it became a very complicated language.
If you want maximum flexibility in terms of design choices AND ways to increase your code's reliability, C++ is the sanest choice.
If flexibility is less important than reliability & maintainability, something like Python or Java would suffice.
Before you flame something like C++ as "flashy like Win95", please understand its context in this world.
-Stu
quick comment....
Roberto, please keep it up. There is a definite need for a (relatively) objective "voice of reason" here.
Looking at this interchange between you and mill, I see the quinessential problem with this whole KDE vs. GNOME issue: there's very little left to flame about anymore, and that pisses off the cynics a lot.... so things just get louder & a lot more silly.
GNOME vs. KDE began with who's ideology is right. Some people in the community (for some reason) *LOVE* confrontation and joined this fight.
Once the ideology became irrelevant (QPL), the flamers had to find a new bone to pick. So they attacked KDE's technology as 'inferior' (though this had always been a periphery argument in favour of Gnome) without ever giving details why (except the ridiculous "C++ sucks use C" argument).
KDE's backers (on Slashdot, not the actual mailing lists) of course are just as guilty of leveling retarded flames at the GNOME community. Calling GNOME vapourware is silly.....Gnome isn't vapourware - it's just immature.
Unfortunately, in a technical community, despite all claims of ideology, the bottom line is always about RESULTS. "SHOW ME THE CODE" is our mantra, as it should be.
With the 1.0 releases out, KDE has shown its code. Gnome has shown its code.
And it's *QUITE* clear to all but someone with a severe case of myopia that GNOME is not up to snuff with KDE in terms of quality.
That's pissed a lot of GNOME-believers off. Reading the 1000+ comments in the GNOME 1.0 Released article, I think GNOME's much-lofted "momentum in the community" took a big hit because of its lack of quality, and the immaturity of its defenders. "KDE is Irrelevant- you can not stop the GNOME JiHAD!" Puh-leeze. I thought this communnity was about diversity.
I'm not saying that GNOME *some day* might be better, but right now its not, and there's really nothing to flame about anymore, (except for outright FUD and bullshitting.)
So, over the next while, as more heat than light is generated in this war, please keep doing what you're doing. The real engineers appreciate the voice of reason.
-Stu
QPL may even be better than GPL! Read section 6c carefully. People have to disclose in-house software which uses QPL'ed software. This is just beautiful. I have always hated the fact that people can take a GPL'ed app, improve it in-house, use the improvement internally and never return the patches back to the community.
Of course, the QPL is somewhat weaker than the GPL in that it is not as virulent: you may write patches to QPL'ed works and license those patches under any license you choose, unless you distribute binaries.
The fact that modifications can only be distributed as patches or in binary form is only a minor problem IMHO. If you look at the Linux kernel for example, you'll see that all modification with each new version are always distributed as patches as well.
I have two little technical objection though:
- 4 b) and 6 a) and b) talk about "machine-readable source code". This is considerably weaker than the GPL, since it allows for obfuscated source code. The GPL demands "preferred form of the work for making modifications to it", which is a very good definition and excludes obfuscation.
- 6 only applies to items which are "distributed", but 6 c) talks about items "not available to the general public". It is not clear what exactly "distributed" means here. I think it should only apply to 6 a) and 6 b), but not to 6 c).
Thanks for a job well done, Trolls!--
Do a search for GNOME or Redhat in kde-list and you will see.
/mill
Like when Mattias Ettrich said Raster was polluting the namespace with the GNOME WM hints.
/mill
Or when Kalle Dalheimer keep calling GNOME vaporware.
Or the numerous times KDE list subscribers call GNOME developers zealots, fanatics or whatever.
In short. There are far more potshots taken by "KDE people" (I saw the term "GNOME people" here earlier so I guess this is the appropriate term) than by "GNOME people".
I wouldn't trust a journalist to tell the truth anyway. To lie and skew reality is part of the job description.
Btw, Miguel expressed these "concerns" when he started GNOME. I guess it could be the KOM/OpenParts stuff he is referring to. I think he and Torben Weis have a different opinion how it should be done. I think the idea to GNOME (or to a desktop environment more likely) came out of a project where Miguel and Federico was implementing something ActiveX like on *nix, but i may be wrong. So how the object model should be implemented is probably kinda fundamental.
Umm, and how are you supposed to make a feature rich desktop that works great on both a low-end and a high-end machine?
/mill
IIRC GNOME's default to be setup for a low-memory box, but if you have the hardware you can tweak imlib to cache everything and then you get the speed-up.
Is /proc even available on all unices?
/mill
The config tool is GUI based.
I wasn't the one whining about FUD. Your 'KDE backers' are. You are no better than the "GNOME people".
/mill - going back to play with guile-gtk and perl-gtk
Btw, gnome-list have been wonderfully free from any flaming and bashing. Take a look at the kde mailing lists and say the same.
Raster was joking. I couldn't care less what Bruce Perens says or thinks. I suggest you send a mail to Miguel ask him what shortcomings he is talking about.
Well I like roses, but it seems you are awfully afraid of GNOME and how they are getting mainstream press. Heck, even whining about how unfair you are treated. Well I think it correlate to how arrogant your representatives are. I wish you good luck in your crusade against NT (after all you are preventing *nix to die on the desktop).
I don't think you care what I think you are entitled to. You will throw mud anyway. "Vaporware" is a common way to start it seems.
/mill
Hmm, you can't be held responsible for the words of others but GNOME developers should be held responsible for what Bruce Perens (the "GNOME backer") says. I see.
Well I don't know Miguel's reasons (I don't even know him) so your attempts to get an explanation from him is as good as mine. What did he say when you asked him though? Did he just ignore you?
I don't use either KDE or GNOME. WindowMaker is all I have. If you had cared about license issues in the first place there would have been no GNOME - correct. Linux ran on my desktop before KDE or GNOME started too. Guess I didn't need either to use *nix on the desktop.
Rare my ass. You are in denial. Do a search for GNOME, Redhat or GIMP on kde-list and tell me that again with a straight face.
On gnome-list whenever there have been any attempts to take shots at KDE or their developers (has happened at times) they have been told to take it elsewhere.
"For a more complete explanation of one participant's attitude on this" and then the URLs follows.
/mill
Well I am out. I won't waste more time on this thread.
It seems slow. The menu icons are very nice, but the menus seem to take quite a bit longer to appear than the KDE menus.
That's because Gnome deallocates and discards menus periodically to save memory. There's an option somewhere to turn that off. (panel properties, methinks)
I'm not going to comment on RPM. I've been installing from CVS but I may switch to debs when someone packages 1.0...either way the library problems aren't there.
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
You could as well use GtkV, a port of the V toolkit, whose author uses to teach C++ programming, and is supposedly extremely easy to use. I saw an announcement for it on Freshmeat today, so go check it out.
In Soviet Russia, Jesus asks: "What Would You Do?"
Now STFU.
Quoting from http://www.labs.redhat.com/news-1q98.shtml, news dated January 12 1998:
-------------------------
Lots of discussion about CORBA going on. This is important to resolve, as it core to the Gnome environment. Apparently its down to ILU, OmniORB, or Mico. All have strengths and weaknesses. For the record, KDE is already using Mico successfully.
--------------------------
Now be a man and apologize... oh, well.
Go look at koffice. Look at Kom. Look at OpenParts.
Now tell me where I can get a working, documented version of Baboon. Hell, tell me where I can get a sane *description* of Baboon that's not a link to MS docs.
I mean, I supposed we were in this for technical superiority and fun. And now I have to care about this crap?
;-)
BTW: I know about baboon because, well, I know about lots of things I shouldn't waste valuable brain space on
Kom is used quite widely now, and on the next
KDE version every one will use it.
If publicity stunts is all it takes, I'll do it
myself. But, as I said, that would suck.
What's the point of "winning" if you need to become such a waste in the process?
I won't say GNOME is buggy, I haven't used 1.0.
Now, go and look at the 1000 posts in the GNOME announcement, read the GNOME list archives, and make your own decision.
A styled text display widget is basic for a modern desktop.
--------
This is a license for code they haven't generally released yet. They haven't actually released a product and they've announced the license!
--------
Specificaly the part about how the current snapshots are RELEASED under THIS LICENSE.
Apologies?
-------
Stop using shadow effects for window button icons.
They are hard to see and stupid looking.
-------
I don't know what you mean. The buttons in the titlebar? Those are just pixmaps, you can change them. I use the ones from the MAC KDE theme, which are sober yet pretty.
---------
Don't put useless crap in the middle of the
scroll bar thumb. I see a hole (what for?) in
one image and a MacOS thingy in the other. Eew.
---------
The hole is a NeXT thingie. It is trying to look like NeXT so it makes sense. The code to disable that is about 20 lines, if you feel so inclined.
---------
Gradients do not belong anywhere. Don't put them
accross button faces. Don't put them accross
title bars. Think! You just made one side hard
to read and you fucked up the subtle 3d effect.
---------
I like to use *some* gradients just to make things look pretty, but that's personal taste. Gradients on titlebars can be easily disabled in KDE's control center.
---------
Motif drop-down combo boxes are confusing and
they look like shit. Gtk and Qt both copy this?
Pardon me while I puke...
---------
In Motif style, it makes lots of sense to do them that way! If you prefer the 95 style comboboxes, that is, of course, also available.
Lately they seem to believe the LGPL is only good as bait.
Let me know where you get free Motif.
And where you get all those nifty VBX and OCX for
free.
And where you get libgtop, libreadline, libgdbm for free to use on your commercial, proprietary application.
And where you get Zinc for free. Or Galaxy.
1) ILU is not a component object model.
ILU is an ORB (as in CORBA).
2) GNOME doesn't use ILU
The GNOME ORB of choice is ORBit. Another thing they decided to unnecesarily (IMHO) implement from scratch.
3) GNOME doesn't have a component object model yet
Whatever that buzzword chunk is supposed to mean, except in their name. They have a *project* for a object model called BABOON, which is not actually implemented yet.
4) KOM/Openparts is the same as ILU
No, KOM/OpenParts is about the same as Baboon. Or rather, it will be in some time when Baboon reaches some state of usability. On the other hand, KOM/Openparts has existed and been in use for about a year. Descriptions of it have been published on some of the finest computer magazines in the world (c't or iX?)
5) ILU is a standard
No, ILU is just a implementation (and a rather excentric one!) of a *part* of the CORBA standard.
6) The other guy was criticizing GNOME for using a standard instead of the think KDE made up
GNOME's Baboon is no standard. It is (will be) at most based, or "inspired" on Microsoft's OLE. It is (will be) imlemented on top of a standard, which is CORBA.
KDE's KOM/Openparts is not based on OLE, and is implemented on top of the same standard.
KOM/OP exists, is toolkit independent, and works.
And an answer to your final question:
"Why doesn't KDE support Gnome's object model?"
What object model?????
Or Raster saying it was time to "crush KDE"?
Or some other GNOME person I don't remember saying in a magazine that "if you wanted to defeat germany you need to bomb Berlin"?
Or Bruce Perens (big GNOME backer) saying in a magazine that KDE was "disgusting"?
Or Miguel, every time he can saying KDE has "technical shortcomings" and "design issues" and that "KOM is a hack" or that "we won't use KOM/OP because we want to do it right" and NEVER, not even ONCE saying what the fuck is he talking about specifically?
Or like Miguel trolling #kde asking every one to help GNOME because KDE was "evil" and "doomed"? For two weeks???
Or the GNOME guys saying all the time "we are catching up, KDE had a huge lead"? Wake up and smell the roses, we had a 8 month lead, and we delivered 1.0 a year earlier, and it was solid. The gap is getting wider.
Besides, mailing lists is one thing, magazines and press releases are another.
Ok, I'm pissed.
Want to see the first ever FUD attempt in this?
Look at the first ever mention of GNOME, the GNOME announcement. There you will find the "KDE forces you to use one WM" and the "KDE has technical issues" crap. So, I assume you now believe I am entitled to throw mud at GNOME?
I have asked Miguel a dozen times to give details on what he means by "technical troubles" and whatever, as have many others, to no response.
There is no such thing as "my KDE backers", I am just a programmer trying to do what I can. I can't be held responsable by the words or actions of others, wether they are related to KDE or not, as can't other KDE people. Noone here can give orders to others, specially me. Finally, I claim not be better than anyone, I have my share of badness.
"Raster was joking"? Well, fuck off. Oops, that was a joke.
"Afraid"? Sure. I am afraid that what was once a rather nice place to be around, the "free software community" is coming to be just the same swamp the commercial software world is, ruled by marketeers and liers.
And as for whining about unfair treatment: if I feel I am being treated unfairly, you bet your butt I am going to try to do something about it. If people try to push competing products based on lies, half truths, and digs at things I am involved with, you bet I am going to talk about it. It's my fucking right, and I plan on exercising it.
As for the death of UNIX on the desktop, mill, if it wasn't for KDE there would be no GNOME, and you would have no fucking unix on the desktop.
Finally: I am subscribed to all the kde mailing lists, and it's very rare that GNOME is even mentioned, much less flamed. There is an exception in the last few days because of Miguel's stupid attacks on us. Our reply? We put their fucking announcement on our news page.
------
"You will throw mud" "Vaporware is a good way to start"
------
Go and bring me one quote of me saying something false about GNOME. As for Vaporware, put it in context. Lots of things in GNOME *are* vapor.
What's GNOME supposed to be? "Network Object Model Environment"??? Where can I download a network object model environment? THE NAME ITSELF IS VAPOR.
-----
Hmm, you can't be held responsible for the words of others but GNOME developers should be
held responsible for what Bruce Perens (the "GNOME backer") says. I see.
-----
Where did I say that? I say Bruce, a GNOME backer, should be held responsable for what he said, Raster should be held responsable gor what he said, Miguel should be, the FAQ maintainer should be for what he puts in the FAQ, you should for what you say, and I should for what I say.
Once everyone eats his piece of the pie, let's see who's fatter.
-----
Rare my ass. You are in denial. Do a search for GNOME, Redhat or GIMP on kde-list and tell
me that again with a straight face.
-----
I don't need to, I was there. Go do a search for KDE in the GIMP list for all Icare, since the thread was crossposted to both lists.
Are you gonna whine to the GIMP people now?
what more do you want?
Free as in "the Truth shall set you..."
Is GNOME as buggy as KDE is ugly?
Just asking...
"Be nice, veer left, and never stop thinking" Iain Banks - Walking On Glass
Wow, what an egregious spelling error. I can understand "alot", but "allot"?!?!? And you even misspelled "immaculate"!
Maybe you should spend less time compiling kernels and more time in school?
--
Timur Tabi
Remove "nospam_" from email address
Now all those stupid sloppy fsckers who've been wanking non-stop about license issues can come down off their high Stallman horse and use a DE that actually WORKS.
Been doing that for months now. It's called Gnome, and it works, at least in my experience, better than KDE.
I'm not, however, going to say that KDE sucks. KWM, now, that's another matter; KWM is bar none the worst WM I've ever seen (and I even include TWM in there), and it's the only reason I (and probably most people who don't know just how badly KWM messes up the rest of the desktop environment and blame it on something else) don't like KDE. It's almost entirely because of KWM that KDE is so slow, ugly, and unstable; I know this because as soon as I put a different windowmanager in there all of these issues disappear (or can be worked around) and KDE becomes pretty decent (not to mention fast). The only problem remaining is that KDE uses embarrasingly huge amounts of resources, but as the code opens up more I'm sure we'll see the bloat getting trimmed.
My point: KDE doesn't suck, even though Gnome rules the roost. I do wish the two would make a bit more effort at bring cross-compatible (perhaps something beyond drag&drop for a change); everyone would be happy then.
Actually, you're wrong. Even if you *do* pick a language which supports subclassing (such as Python), you still can't extend your C++ application if you've used SWIG wrappers.
In order for SWIG to handle this case, it would need to create a C++ subclass which overrode *all* of the virtual functions and then checked every time one was called to see if your script had overridden it. It would certainly be possible to add this support to SWIG, but it's going to involve some significant run-time performance penalties, and AFAIK, nobody has done it yet.
Too bad, because it would be nice if one could use SWIG to extend something like BeOS (or KDE) to let you write full-fledged GUI apps using SWIG bindings. I looked into that back in late '97, but due to the subclassing problem, gave up on it.
-Jake
--
Jake
I'm not familiar with the status of the Python/Qt bindings or their quality, though, with the QPL finally looking like a usable licence, I probably should.
If the wound does not heal within a fortnight have a medical doctor examine it.
Leprosy is no joke.
Obviously, Gnome people give their rats asses. If you aren't only using their product, you're Satan.
I Agree.
Folks ought to take a little perspective on this issue. For example, if you're against the QPL, how can you support Sun JAVA and Netscape MGL licenses? Is the QPL worse than Sun's new "community License" for Solaris? Do you hate Sun with the same ferver?
Well, I take it in stride, even though I prefer free in the same sense rms prefers free. But what the hell, not everyone else agrees. Some people want to make money with their code, and the laws says this is their right. For Troll Tech to release their source code at all was a significant move for a private corporation. It allowed its users to scrutinize QT as a product totally, unlike how most other proprietary APIs were closed internally.
So I think all these self righteous verbal assaults against Troll Tech's previous and current licenses are misguided. They are truely one step above the likes of Microsoft, Oracle, and the other huge proprietary software vendors. And like Sun and Netscape, Troll Tech asserts some proprietary rights, but they still give out the source.
I use KDE because it's worked better over the last year than CDE (that horribly bug ridden product from the "Open" Group). Well, I like that integrated desktop stuff. So I'm downloading GNOME-1.0 right now and will use it for a good test run. I hope for smooth sailing ahead and a realistic impression of how I want to use this software down the road.
What I really want to see soon is both systems running together. I hope the KDE and GNOME developers agree on API standards so GNOME and KDE systems integrate better in the future. We should have both, and the developers should work together - without animosity. What drives these flames?
Indeed, GUI programming is (in my opinion) one of the places where OOP provides the most benefit. By the way, my experience was that until I really understood OOP my c++/java code was just "C code in disguise as c++/java" - the book that really turned the corner for me was "Design Patterns - Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software". I readily admit that both c++ and java have their drawbacks as languages but OOP itself is wonderful, as much a step forward as was structured programming. If you haven't read that book I urge you to give it a try, it is absolutely in the top 5 programming books I have ever read.
there are two kinds of people in this world - those who divide people into two groups and those who don't
lay-mer
I don't like the license.
Now that that's been said, you can pay Troll Tech for the commercial licence for QT and then you don't have to distribute or reveal the source.
I don't think there is anything preventing commercial QT licences from movign from their flat $1299USD rate to any figure they desire.
Troll Tech is using the free software model to popularize their libraries, and they are cashing in on commercial software. It is perfectly valid, and they are quite honest about it. I emailed them on that subject. I don't have to like it though.
There's GNUstep, which has been around LONG before KDE or Gnome were even started, and I'm sure there's others. Just because people only know about KDE and Gnome doesn't make them the only two.
Additionally, GNUstep is much nicer than both KDE and Gnome because it doesn't tie applications to the window manager; instead, it is a set of protocols programs can use to talk to each other (and Windowmaker, the testbed WM, just happens to be one of those programs).
---
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
Quine "quine?
Not long ago I would have loudly agreed with you, but I have come to beleive that GTK's OO hierarchy in C was actually a very wise thing to do. I have been working on a very large software application that needs multiple language bindings and must run on a diverse number of machines. The application has grown quite large, but I fear I must transition it from C++ to C.
In particular, writing bindings to non-OO scripting languages has been very difficult and because I used all sorts of function and operator overloading the bindings don't "parallel" each other very well. Writing foreign language bindings to c code is pretty standard for any scripting language, it's rare that any scripting language has any particular support for c++ features in their binding system (i.e. creating new c++ classes in other languages).
I designed my application so that a c++ class could be dynamically added as a plugin, but this is really bad if you hope to have non-c++ plugins. The Gimp procedural database is a much better approach IMHO.
I also find that c++ compilers vary widely on the implementation of ISO c++ features. Thus portability was VERY difficult for me. To get my application to run on the target systems, I basically had to get rid of all templates and use very vanilla classes. Writing c++ code was great until I had to move it to another machine with a different c++ compiler. I would then spend about as much time redesigning it to work on the new machines as I did on the original. Plain vanilla C has been much kinder to me than C++ in this regard.
I do agree that there is a definite anti-c++ bent in the free software community, and I don't intend to be encouraging it, but my personal beleif is that core libraries should be written in c. This makes it easier for people writing "end user" applications of less utilitary scope to take advantage of the code base no matter what language they prefer to write their applications in.
I truly sympathize with wanting to be able to use c++ features that were DESIGNED to do what you must implement in c, but if the code can be used by more people with more languages on more systems it is more useful if it is written in a less elegant form. As languages go, c is the common denominator.
SWIG is a good tool, and it will help you use classes and methods written in c++, but a lot of c++'s functionality comes through inheritance. If you would like to "subclass" a c++ class in order to extend the application you must do so in c++. Many libraries provide classes that must be subclassed even to be useful, SWIG really can't help you here.
The best you could do would be to write a subclass in c++ that does what you want and then bind that with SWIG. But my point is you still haven't provided the user of your SWIG bindings with the same functionality that is only available when you can subclass something. If the very method of extending your application is through subclassing, then SWIG bindings wont allow the target language to extend your library / application.
If you design your application/system to be extended through subclassing and then pick a language that does not support that particular OO feature, well, you've made a mistake in design.
I agree. And so for core libraries that you would like to be functional and useful for everyone you logically don't want to use any OO feature specific to the language the library is written in. This is what I was referring to when I said c was the least common denominator. (not that you nust use c)
It all comes down to good design, not picking the lowest common denominator language.
This is true, but I don't presume to know exactly how something I write will be used, and thus can't plan to add or remove certain OO features. Thus if you limit your scope to certain bindings that you feel are useful, you have written Good [TM] code. If someone else comes along wanting to put this library into a different binding or context, they might not agree it was so good. I am not saying ALL libraries should not require certain OO specific language features. Just libraries that you want everyone to be able to use and be more or less language neutral. It is possible to use OO principles without using OO specific language features in the interface.
Well, yes. If you have programs compiled against 12 different versions of GTK, then you need 12 different GTK libraries. If you're unhappy with that, stick with Slink (which has only 1.0 & 1.1.3) or wait until everything's recompiled against 1.2. Don't trash Potato for being alpha.
Do realize that RMS doesn't buy that argument. If you try to write programs with QT and GPL-ed FSF'owned code, you may be in for a lawsuit, or at least many complaints, no matter what distribution you run.
They work for me! Maybe you screwed something up, but dpkg -i *.deb in the directory I downloaded it from worked..
that was a bit premature, it was going then.. but if you simply add gnome-session and gnome-terminal and a few other big packages and carefully keep adding dependencies as thye're needed, it does work. I have it runnon my machine right now.
The QPL is significantly more liberal than the GPL by allowing relicencing of modifications by the original author (in this case Troll Tech), but there are also some restrictions, mainly the "patch-clause" (not a big issue, since this is already supported by the packet formats of the distributions) and the obligation to submit modifications to the original author when asked (no closed in-house versions).
I was heavily impressed by the KDE desktop, which I had avoided for so long.
Much of the flaming in the free software world is totally unwarranted -- unfortunately, the intense and negative response to GNOME's 1.0 release was warranted. I hope that they got a heavy dose of our much-touted "peer review" as a development aide.
However, I still use GNOME, and I still believe it is a good idea. Just not useful in its current form. I plan to develop for it for a variety of reasons, however, we really ought to think about merging these two desktop environments into a cohesive unit. How cool would it be not to need GMC to work, because KFM already does? Drag-n-drop between Java, GNOME apps, KDE apps, Motif apps... and choice between all of them not just between desktop environments, but for each individual app!!
I'm pretty happy with the state of things as they are, but I'd like to see more.
As The Honorable Mr. Torvalds said, now we can stop the political discussion about KDE and just concentrate on getting code to work. GNOME has a number of cool features (especially in their libraries) and KDE has the distinct advantage of being able to just install and work instantly, in the here-and-now. I can replace windows completely with a copy of WordPerfect, WINE, and KDE. For the more adventurous, I add GNOME's panel in, and a couple of gtk apps.
Congrats to everyone who contributed to both efforts!! A pox on the house of whoever's brain-dead idea it was to release GNOME before it was ready, but most of the developers have been doing good work.
I hope that everybody tries to work together more in the future.
Glyph Lefkowitz - Project leader, Twisted Matrix Labs
Writer, Programmer - Not a member of the TSU
Uh, see http://www.troll.no/qpl/
-N.
Maybe the GNOME thread had so many posts because it was left in a prominent position for maybe 20 hours?
Hmm, you can't be held responsible for the words of others but GNOME developers should be held responsible for what Bruce Perens (the "GNOME backer") says. I see.
In this case, Miguel (GNOME Developer) is in complete agreement with everything Bruce had to say in that particular piece. He said as much and has defended Bruce's article.
Note however, that since the QPL, Bruce has offered a "peace offering" to the KDE developers and seems to have done good on his word.
OH mill, I almost forgot. It seems the rest of the GNOME developers are in complete agreement with the Bruce piece as well. Why don't you check the GNOME FAQ? (right after the place where they say the GNOME people like the KDE people)
KDE's icons didn't really look that great until beta4 or 1.0. After that they looked really sharp. Gnome could do with using those although there is a size difference. I agree about the huge controls. The icons could do with being 2/3 - 1/2 the size. Icon and panel size needs to be configurable.
-Steve
Umm, and how are you supposed to make a feature rich desktop that works great on both a low-end and a high-end machine?
/proc/cpuinfo and the size of /proc/kmem at startup and decide which set of code to use and how large your caches should be?
...
Look at
Have a nice GUI-based program where you can pull out bars to set the resource allocations?
Just two ideas
I've been using Linux for about a year now. KDE and SuSE Linux are what kept me hanging in until I could figure out trickier things, like GNOME, WindowMaker etc.
I think that KDE is a fantastic product that is rock solid, and has always been a good performer on any of my many machines. True, it's a little slow starting up, but it never dies giving up core dumps like they are goin out of style.
presently, I have two Linux machines. A Celery 416 with 64MB RAM and KDE 1.1 as well as a Celery 430 running GNOME 1.0 with 128MB RAM. In most other respects they are identicle. I have run KDE on everything from a 486 to my present systems.
Both systems are running kernel 2.2.1 with RH5.2, both are extremely quick. Having said all that, I have yet to have a 30min interval where GNOME/GMC etc doesn't core dump. It's really horrible.
I like GNOME, but KDE is simply more usable today. It seems obvious that GNOME was rushed so that redhat could release 6.0, and that's too bad. Maybe I'll just have to try to find Mandrake...
GNOME does seem to be a bit of a one distribution show.
Ben
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a QT/KDE port of Mozilla as well? I seem to remember hearing about QTMozilla, where they took 500,000 of Mozilla code and squished it down to 50,000 of QT.
As a matter of fact, I downloaded a demo of it for both Linux and NT in the summer.
Read the license. It allows distribution of modified versions in their entirity. It also allows distributions of just patches, if that's your thing.
My god, there's nothing about assigning copyright, larger works, integration by TT into commercial versions (though that probably does become implied, as they still own copyright to the whole).
Besides, open source simply means source for all for free. What you're allowed to do with it doesn't seem to be covered under the definition. Free software is a much larger superset of open source. Still, I defy anyone to show me how this is not free software.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
Read the license. It allows distribution of modified versions in their entirety. It also allows distributions of just patches, if that's your thing.
Besides, open source simply means source for all for free. What you're allowed to do with it doesn't seem to be covered under the definition. Free software is a much larger superset of open source. Still, I defy anyone to show me how this license is not free software. Even the original author of a GPL'd work can turn around and sell his original work under another license. This has an MPL-ish clause that guarantees inclusion of accepted patches in the free version as well as commercial Die hard communists (I don't mean that as an insult in this sense) might object to TT ever making a profit off someone else's work, but the fact remains that you would have given it away anyhow.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
So it has no production code but it has mindshare. This is the primary characteristic of vaporware, dude... Whether or not it is vaporware doesn't change that that is a vaporware attitude. I urge you to adopt a more constructive attitude.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
Take it from someone who has to use CDE: KDE is damn beautiful in comparison. Besides, I always thought it looked a little OS/2-ish.
I really hope they've stopped ripping off Be's icons though.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
posters that is. ohman why'd they have to be called troll tech...
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
And the next section allows distribution in whole. Try reading the WHOLE thing, legal documents are notoriously holistic.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
> Furthermore, it's a horribly arrogant license, since you are not allowed to distribute modifications except as patches,
Come back when you've read section 4
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
> Yeah. I noticed. Sorry! Should have checked my facts before I spouted off such nonsense.
Hey watch it buddy, keep that sort of thing up and you'll start a trend and the world as we know it will end.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
You're perfectly free to use it if you charge others. You just have to swallow your own medicine and pay for it.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
Read section 4 and tell me which big words you don't understand.
Am I being annoying yet by pointing this out every time someone posts this inaccuracy? Maybe I won't have to repeat it even ONCE when the next article about Qt comes out.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
Installing all 31,000 flavors of everything seems to be debian's thing, and it's why so many people hate dpkg. c'mon debian, can we see a "debian-lite"? Even windows has an unattended minimal install now.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
For the same reason that Wine needs to break into the mainstream. The IETF knows this very well, and it is one of their rules that to for an RFC to become a STD, it must have two independent interoperable implementations of the standard. Otherwise you really don't have a standard.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
| This license is governed by the Laws of Norway. Disputes shall be settled by Oslo City Court.
... in Norweigan.
Check if Norway has an official language statute. If it does, the license holds
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
At least this time I don't feel like I'm saying the same thing to the same AC over and over. The patch language is section 3. The modified whole may be distributed per section 4. The patch language is now superfluous at best.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
Read section 4.
Make me shut up by reading it and not posting this correction over and over and over (while 1 "and over")
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
IANAL, but after careful reading of the QPL, here is my interpretation of it. Mind you, I'm not infalible by any means (and I'm sure I'll get corrections if my mistakes), but this is meant as a rough "layperson" interpretation of the QPL. (note when I say "FreeQT" I'm referring to the code from Troll, plus any mods covered by this license.)
1. You are granted the non-exclusive rights set forth in this license provided you agree to and comply with any and all conditions in this license. Whole or partial distribution of the Software, or software items that link with the Software, in any form signifies acceptance of this license.
If you use our software or any software derived from it, you have to agree to this license. Using it implies acceptance. Everyone can use this software.
2. You may copy and distribute the Software in unmodified form provided that the entire package, including - but not restricted to - copyright, trademark notices and disclaimers, as released by the initial developer of the Software, is distributed.
You must distribute the package as a whole - you may not remove any component.
3. You may make modifications to the Software and distribute your modifications, in a form that is separate from the Software, such as patches. The following restrictions apply to modifications:
You can modify our software; however, when you give it to others, you have to distribute the unmodified version (as per #2), with your mods in a seperate form. patch(1) is a typical form, though not the only one. Also, when distributing your mods with the original, you must follow these rules:
a. Modifications must not alter or remove any copyright notices in the Software.
Your mods can't remove the creator's IP notices. Fair is fair - you must recognize other's contributions to the work.
b. When modifications to the Software are released under this license, a non-exclusive royalty-free right is granted to the initial developer of the Software to distribute your modification in future versions of the Software provided such versions remain available under these terms in addition to any other license(s) of the initial developer.
You give Troll Tech the right to include your mods in a future version of the FreeQT (with no payment to you), provided that the future version of FreeQT is distributed with terms similar to this license. That is, your code may become part of FreeQT. It is not clear if they have to acknowledge your contribution in any way (though I would hope they do).
4. You may distribute machine-executable forms of the Software or machine-executable forms of modified versions of the Software, provided that you meet these restrictions:
You can distribute compiled versions of FreeQT, or a compiled version of your mods+FreeQT. That is, you can compile their software to a library, or patch their software, then compile it. The resulting binary must follow these rules for distribution:
a. You must include this license document in the distribution.
The QPL must come in the same package that you distribute the compiled binaries in.
b. You must ensure that all recipients of the machine-executable forms are also able to receive the complete machine-readable source code to the distributed Software, including all modifications, without any charge beyond the costs of data transfer, and place prominent notices in the distribution explaining this.
You must give away the source code to both the original FreeQT code and the modifications you made. You must tell people that you are doing so in an obvious place (eg. the README or LICENSE file). You can charge a reasonable sum to cover distribution for the source, and no more.
c. You must ensure that all modifications included in the machine-executable forms are available under the terms of this license.
The QPL is "infectious" in a manner similar (but not identical) to the GPL. Any modifications you make are automatically covered under the QPL. It is not clear if this allows the code to be GPLed (I think not, but this is another matter).
5. You may use the original or modified versions of the Software to compile, link and run application programs legally developed by you or by others.
You can write programs that use the software (either in pristine or modified form). You can also compile programs written by others that require FreeQT (or a modified version). You can also run programs that require the FreeQT (or modified) binaries. Duuuuhh. :-)
6. You may develop application programs, reusable components and other software items that link with the original or modified versions of the Software. These items, when distributed, are subject to the following requirements:
You are allowed to write programs that use the software (or a modified version of it). When you distribute the resulting program, you have to follow these rules: (note, that if you don't distribute the program, A and B do not apply).
a. You must ensure that all recipients of machine-executable forms of these items are also able to receive and use the complete machine-readable source code to the items without any charge beyond the costs of data transfer.
You have to give away the source code to any application you write that uses the software. You can charge a small distribution fee, but that's it. Anyone who gets the binaries of your program must also either be given the source code or must be provided a way to easily get them for no more than a nominal distributuion fee.
b. You must explicitly license all recipients of your items to use and re-distribute original and modified versions of the items in both machine-executable and source code forms. The recipients must be able to do so without any charges whatsoever, and they must be able to re-distribute to anyone they choose.
Any programs you write that use FreeQT must be freely distributable, in both source and binary form. That is, once a recipient has either the binary or source of your program, they can give it away to anyone, and you cannot charge them anything for doing so. They may modify your source code and give both the mods and the new binary away, too. Also, this implies that the recipient can get the source code, compile it, and then give away the resulting binary.
c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items, then you must supply one.
If you choose not to distribute your application outside of your organization, or are only using it personally, you do not have to abide by clauses A and B. However, if Troll Tech finds out about your application, they can (at their option) force you to give them a copy. What is unclear is what Troll Tech can do with the copy. The implications are that TT must then release it as per A and B, but I'm not sure about that.
Disclaimer, Warranty, etc...
Standard "I'm not responsible for anything that happens when you use my code" legalese boilerplate. Ignore it - it's generally of questionable legality anyway (though everyone includes it, like some voodoo magic that will ward off lawsuits. Ha!)
Note that my reading of the QPL does not preclude a app developer from selling his or her software (perhaps bundled with support or documentation). You are free to sell the binaries of applications that use FreeQT, but you have to give away the source.
How the QPL plays with other licenses (BSD, NPL/MPL, GPL, LGPL) is beyond the scope of this post. Perhaps someone else will take on that job.
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
They won't give it to you for free. If you're not writing free software. You have to pay for it. If you decide to write for Windows, you have to pay for it. If you write stuff using Qt for KDE you have to make it open source. Where's your freedom now? With Gnome and GTK, you have the choice. If/When GTK gets ported to Windows. You won't have to pay a 1K license fee to write your software for Windows.
Just one of the many reasons Gnome kicks ass!
... it is crap as of today. My apologies to developers, you are good guys, but it is it is fucking far from being good now. Good luck.
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
.. when Windows Qt is QPL. I do not have 1K for the license, and I want Windows people to benefit from my code.
Windows is not going away for a long time. Just like the Mac.
Please God, give us a free cross-platform UI toolkit for C++. I promise I will be a good citizen then..
And without preprocessor Qt hack preferrably..
Though Qt clone will be good as well..
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
why not tell the developers or contribute to it rather than bash it ?
I did. It was about reasonable postscript printing support for widgets. It killed the chance to use it for me.
In any case the documentation is so bad at this point, it is hard to figure out what is possible to do and what's not.
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
Or they maybe if waiting for a developers like you to make it perfect
:)
Nah, not me, I just want to use it...
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
the same license for the Windows version? People around me do Windows. I hate MFC.
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
the same license for the Windows version? Or BSD style licence for the OLD version?
People around me do Windows. I hate MFC.
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
I though the print widget is in gnome-print
not in GTK--, last I checked...
Need no stupid "C". I need STL(!! - had you all
"C" lovers check it out), and good UI abstraction for my work.
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
so go check it out.
I will, thanks..
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
... I have not found where it says what is the official language of the license. It says about the choice of urisdiction, but not about the language.
... What if I make a not so accurate translation of it into Russian - open to interpretation - and use it instead?
IANAL
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
.. should be revived.
I think that if some big company, say Corel, or even bigger, like IBM, decide to write Qt based applications, it can be cheaper for them to hire people to finish Harmony, and use it for development, instead of paying to TrollTech.
I wish it happens soon. (Not because I do not like free software, but because I want Qt to compile my code for Windows, QPL for Qt for Windows would be fine for me)
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
to prevent people from giving away printed copies of the source code
:(
Not a big deal. If it is the same font in a single column, any character recognition program bundled with your scanner is almost 100% correct.
80 000 lines of code ~ 1000 pages, full week of scanning... Ouups..
Maybe, I am wrong and it is a big deal...
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
You are an ass. Simply an ass. Gnome CRASHES.
And you are an ass.
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
Ok, I can see your confusion. SWIG was in the title of my message so you thought I was referring to it. I wasn't. I was not claiming SWIG had any ability whatsoever. I have never even used SWIG.
ILU is a way of specifiying language neutral interfaces between code written in different languages. It is not an object model, but it could be used to implement one, or at least specify one.
I know I managed to completely lock up everything GNOME related by clicking the little terminal button on the panel. I'll stick w/ KDE for now.
-matt
Why don't you look at wxWindows at http://web.ukonline.co.uk/julian.smar t/wxwin. It's a cross-platform C++ library that is fairly mature, and really usable. It is currently available on GTK+, Motif, and Windows. A MacOS port is currently in progress, and a Qt port is also in the works. I am even working on porting it to the BeOS. This gives you access to all of the major OS's out there (Mac, Windows, Linux (via GTK+ or even Motif) and major UNIX variants (through Motif, or GTK+ as well.) In addition, a Python language port is a available for those who don't like C++.
Ken Crandall
crandall@computer.org
Do you remember IE 3.0. It was great. It had stylesheets, which alone made it better than the Netscape at that time. Yea, we got marquee tags, and the , but all in all, pages looked great with IE. Pages also loaded up faster than Netscape. Yea, it had the marquee, active X, and vb-script, but who uses that junk?
However, the intergrated 4.0 could make my hole OS crash (busting my net connection).
I know I will be moderated down for this, but . . . Vincent
Run gnome-session, "killall enlightenment"(sp?) in a term, and then run whatever WM you want from that terminal you killed enlightenment in. Restart X, the wm should work fine.
Agree about gmc, it was just included with the 1.0 release, it is kinda buggy.
I know I will be moderated down for this, but . . . Vincent
Its free (an overnight download), and you can keep KDE and use gnome at the same time.
I know I will be moderated down for this, but . . . Vincent
Try it out yourself
Its free (an overnight download), and you can keep KDE and use gnome at the same time.
I know I will be moderated down for this, but . . . Vincent
The port is no longer updated. It is not the modern gecko, NSLAyout whatever browser.
I know I will be moderated down for this, but . . . Vincent
I'd like to use GNOME -- I like the way it looks. I've tried moving over to GNOME three times now, but so far I've always fallen back to KDE. Why? There are a few reasons:
No properly integrated window manager. Enlightenment is too slow, WM keeps on shutting itself down and running Blackbox on me (I don't know why) and doesn't have mousing between workspaces (except when you're carrying a window), and the others do not seem to have the necessary GNOME support.
It seems slow. The menu icons are very nice, but the menus seem to take quite a bit longer to appear than the KDE menus.
The libraries. *Every* time I try to install the latest GNOME or GTK libraries from RPM, I get reams of conflict messages -- even when upgrading from one library to the next version. Inevitably I have to force the issue. Even when I installed Red Hat 5.2 (which I did in part to get GNOME in an easy-to-handle package), the RH install coughed and died because there were too many "X requires files from the old library" messages.
I would *LOVE* to run GNOME. I think it's much cleaner and fresher-looking than KDE. But right now, KDE is easier to work with. It gives me no headaches. So I'm sticking with KDE.
I just wish KDE hadn't gotten itself entangled with this Qt licensing mess. Life'd be a lot simpler without the religious issues.
-- Meet the Residents -- http://www.residents.com/
I know *how* to switch between workspaces in WM. I just don't *like* the ways. I don't want to have to aim for a box in a pager or an even smaller arrow in the clip. I just want to spin my trackball to the side and be there. Works great with KDE, I'd like to be able to do the same under GNOME.
-- Meet the Residents -- http://www.residents.com/
The thing is -- I shouldn't *have* to be disabling features to get reasonable performance. I'm on a 266 MHz Pentium, I should be able to get reasonable menu performance out of it. If KDE can keep up and GNOME can't, then that suggests that KDE is doing it better than GNOME. KDE's graphic design leave a lot to be desired compared to the GNOME stuff, but that's no fun if I have to turn the GNOME artwork off.
What it boils down to is that a desktop should be usable out of the box, and (for now, for me) GNOME isn't -- even though I like what I see. The look is great, the feel is wrong (so far).
-- Meet the Residents -- http://www.residents.com/
That's called "discriminating against fields of endeavor".
Also, RMS said he felt that a similar provision on the original NPL made it non-free.
And which KDE mailing lists are you refering to? The two KDE mailing lists that I am on tend to avoid Gnome flame fests... in fact, I can only remember Gnome being mentioned a few times since I've been on the lists.
check out wxWindows. It's C++, does windows, mac, motif, GTK+, and soon BeOS and maybe OS/2.
Try BeOS if you haven't already, it has a very slick C++ API and has ecgs, not to mention a nice fully functional, holy-war-free desktop GUI!
What exactly do you mean by completely free? Just can't please some people.
Geez, not even the sacred emacs is totally free. After all, I can't modify and redistribute it without supplying the source code.
Do you want everything in the public domain or something? If so, you're using the wrong OS.
Arandir...
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Do not fear the trolls.
The idea of a Norwegian company taking over the world is pretty strange. On the other hand perhaps not for somebody who only knows
the American business culture. I know both and have to report that the US business culture seems to me very aggressive very marketing
and finance driven. A business culture that tries to get as much money as possible for as little offered value as possible. In Europe I see
more emphasize on a good vendor customer relationship. Something I call "white" marketing as opposed to the M$ fud and vaporware
approach as a perfect example for "black" marketing.
Rest assured Norway/Trolltec != Redmond/M$
The license issue is important, and Gnome did a great job straightening Trolltec out, but the real danger to Linux is black marketing. It
worries me that Gnome broke with the long standing tradition in the free software world of honoring only a rock solid product as 1.0
version. This smells of black marketing. I was using Linux when it was still a 0.9xxx version and it worked flawlessly, gees I preferred it to
the Sun I had at work. I hope the licensees are strong enough to protect Linux from being perverted by black marketing, but courts work
slowly, and the IT world changes rapidly.
Does anybody knows if there ever was a successful court ruling regarding a GPL or other open source licensees violation?
At least KDE has much better ergonomics than any other system I've seen. Gnome + Enlightenment + a alot of Eterms are sure eyecandy, but it's definately not ergonomic to use an Eterm with a flashy background. The eye has to adjust itself all the time depending on the backgroud color on _the_ spot which the eye is looking. And eterms does have a lot of different background colors.
The same with Enlightenment. It surely is eyecandy , but it's not eyefriendly. The graphics of the important buttons (like minimize) are not sharp enough, and to small (probably configurable though).
For me it feels like KDE is made for everyone, Gnome for young, experienced users who don't have so much problems with the eyes yet.
And yes, Win has a good GUI.
"Best wait for RMS opinion"...
Why don't you have an own opinion? Or is this guy RMS some kind of a god or what?
Couldn't have described it better myself
You can get them at
http://www.debian.org/~jules/gnome-stage-2
Add this line to /etc/apt/sources.list
and use apt to get them
and did I mention that i use Debian potato
Troll should make Qt completely free. No holds bared.
-----
http://www.Windows2Linux.org (Submit your Links)
http://www.Windows2Linux.org (Submit your Links)
Everything y
That's interesting. The post you replied to didn't mention GNU software in general, did it? It's strange that GNOME supporters are trying to put their favourite DE together with all GNU software into one basket, while putting KDE, Qt and other closed source software into another basket. What's wrong with you people? KDE is technically a great project, which produced the best DE so far (criteria: usability and stability) and is distributed under GPL/LGPL.
Those maniac GNOME supporters flaming all over Slashdot should rather become politicians or work for Microshit. Real people use KDE, GNOME or other DE/WM and do not flame.
* Why is GNOME now "1.0"? Is this just marketing? GNOME's implemented functionality is nothing like KDE 1.0. Is this just a Microsoft-like attempt to grab market/mind-share before something's really there? The GNOME project should be honest, and name it 1.0 when it's really acheived the base line that it stands for. Like KDE did.
* One of the biggest "plusses" about GNOME is supposedly the bindings to many languages. It was written up in Linux Journal. People here mention it when saying why GNOME is better. But - is this more vaporware? On gnome.org I could find no information about this. No programming examples, etc. Very Microsoft-like, if you ask me. Meanwhile KDE is starting to get bindings to other languages, too. But it will be true to KDE'S style to only announce them when they're there.
Don't get me wrong - I intend to check GNOME out more in detail - I'm interested in the Palm Pilot package.
But we should be honest and let quality decide what succeeds - not marketing, hype and mindless arguing.
Muesli
GNOME rocks. you're just jealous because it looks better than KDE.
GNOME 1.0 is fast, useful and pretty....It was good enough to make me drop KDE (and I'm very picky about my desktop...that's why I chose KDE in the first place).
I have run the gimp on my windows95 box. The win32 port of gtk is coming along quickly.