I agree with you. Except when you call the article author a developer, since he's not. He'e a KDE enthousiast and Corel hater at the same time.
YES, KDE developers are very grateful for Corel's input ! I can even prove it : I've digged up the best cvs comment about that: look at this one and this one. The truth is not always well written in a nice article linked from Slashdot, it's sometimes hidden in CVS logs:-)
"But instead of showing some gratitude, they write an article about how Corel might be subverting the KDE project."
PLEASE, don't mix up people writing articles about KDE and KDE developers.
Most KDE developers are *grateful* about the comments, suggestions and bug reports sent by the Linux QA team. This guy ('dep') can't stand Corel, that's his problem. Too bad really, because I like all the articles he wrote on KDE - except this one.
You're right in what you say, but you don't see the point. The major difference is about what is used for embedding components. The CORBA solution (be it Mico or ORBit) means that the component is provided by another process, whereas with KParts (the current KDE solution), the component is a shared library, loaded in process, which turns out to be a lot more stable. We didn't replace CORBA(MICO) with DCOP, we replaced it with KParts. DCOP is mainly used for IPC and scripting - and yes, I agree with you that this is needed, whichever solution.
Well, not much to say. Yes, konqueror in the last release crashed quite often - but try 1.91 in a few days, it will be already *a lot* better. We are working on stability, don't worry. And no, I don't believe the code base and the complexity makes it impossible to achieve. On the contrary, it's a lot cleaner than for instance kfm's code, which was just a PITA. Some things can NOT be fixed in kfm, due to its design. With konqueror, however, everything is possible, since the design is a *lot* cleaner.
BTW: about Qt 2.x / Qt 1.x: you can have both on the same system and still use KDE 1.x:)
Re:Holes are for digging, Libraries are for linkin
on
David Faure Interview
·
· Score: 1
I so much agree with you ! Very well said. What about getting a slashdot account, to post at 1 instead of 0 ?:-) (I'm posting this one so that people browsing at 1 wonder what I'm replying to:) )
"Just the font overriding" ? Install it, dude:-). konqueror has two buttons in the toolbar, one for increasing the font size and one for decreasing it. Interesting ideas about killfiles and such.
Why would you want to use the QPL for your own app ?
What is this ? A license contest to see which one is best ? Of course the GPL is better. Note that KDE is GPL, not QPL:). But that's not the point, since the QPL allows to do what we all want with KDE and Qt : use it, distribute it, and modify it, all for free and freely.
I indeed withdraw that answer - to a very unexpected question, which caught me by surprised (this was an oral interview, not a written one, and I misunderstood the question). Please read the thread "pathetic licensing answer".
Is this different ? Just as much as "free" and "commercial" is different. Microsoft bundles things together to sell them all and make sure you don't go and see other vendors. KDE _offers_ many bundled components, but that doesn't mean you have to use them all if you don't want to. Example: if you have the "kview" image viewer, konqueror can use it to show images embedded in a window. Fine. If you don't have it, it will launch your preferred image viewer instead, be it xv, ee, gimp or vi.:) Face it: the biggest need on Linux at the moment, in terms of software, is for a free and full-featured office suite. KOffice is on its way to answer exactly that. Should we not work on KOffice because Microsoft used MSOffice to tie people to Windows ? Nonsense.
IANAL, but here's my opinion: The GPL enforces that what if you base your software on a GPL application, you release it as GPL. The QPL enforces the same thing, you must open-source the software based on Qt [unless you buy a license]. So this is not an additional restriction ! "Give trolltech a copy": this is the case for any open source software ! You don't only give a copy to some people, you give a copy to the whole world !
I really hate this license crap. Can't you see that both the GPL and the QPL aim to the same thing ? They both enforce that derived work is also free and opensource.
Come on, which developer of a GPL application would have a problem with his stuff being distributed and used by people ? Stop thinking of the QPL as "the evil thing we want to avoid because it's not GPL" (or drop netscape...). Besides, there aren't really that many GPLed applications involved. This license nonsense really makes me sick. Talk about fanatism...
About the second comment: I love being quoted out of context. Re-read what I meant by that : the fact that it's interpretation is really subjective, since not two people interpret it the same way. So this "incompatibility" is far from being proven. What makes you think there is one ? Because RMS says so ? Sometimes I feel like there is a dictator, "free" software or not...
> "never ever allow scripting in konqueror" Why ? What's wrong with scripting "open a new window, open that URL inside it", and even "type my login and password for that site" ? As long as _I_ run the script, where's the problem ?
For too many people, scripting == security risk, without really thinking about it. No. But automatically launching untrusted scripts (such as those received by e-mail) is a security risk, yes. That's why kmail doesn't launch scripts.
I am very sorry to hear that:( You wish that KDE core applications were developed out of CVS ? With the changes that happen in kdelibs quite often - to build a better API, and because of all the new stuff in KDE 2.0 (KParts, DCOP, XMLGUI, etc.) - this is almost impossible. What you gain from having apps in CVS is that they can be fixed by many people, especially those who change kdelibs. Out of CVS, it's up to the author to fix his app to cope with the changes, and _that_ can be piss him off a lot, obviously. This is not about "controlling", this is effectively about helping....
To answer the more personal comments, KDE is definitely nobody's fiefdom. My answer (which I can't remember) may have sounded not nice and I apologize for that, but the idea of developing core apps out of CVS really doesn't make much sense. You want to "open more" the development by making it private ? About KDE 2 apps that are not in CVS : from 1.91 onwards, they should be able to compile and run on top of KDE. The API shouldn't change anymore. No need to wait for the official 2.0. Finally, I'm not a paid fulltime developer... yet.
Exactly. Scripting works by inter-process (DCOP) calls. So forget all those talks about "viruses and other scripts that can wipe out your hard disk". All you can do is control a KDE application - and no, konqueror doesn't offer "rm/" in its DCOP interface:-)
Yes, I wish I could rephrase my answer on that. I was totally surprised by the question - note that this was *before* the $3K thing, since the interview happened on June 1st. I replied to "Why Qt uses the QPL and not the GPL", not really to "what to do about that alleged incompatibility" - sorry about that.
So, what do I have to say about that incompatibility ? That people should look at what they want/need. KDE is free and open-source, since it's GPL/LGPL. Qt is free and open-source, since it's QPL. Isn't that what you want to use ? Free and opensource software ? RMS may find an incompatibility between those two licenses because of the way *he* interprets them, but remember that the GPL hasn't been tried in court yet, and interpretations vary. Why does everyone here (and elsewhere), dreaming of "freedom", blindly obey what RMS says about licenses ? There _may_ be a slight incompability somewhere (I'm not a lawyer !), and I hope it will be solved at some point, but I don't see how that prevents debian from shipping KDE Qt ! Both are free to use, distribute, hack, etc. Isn't that what you want from free software ? So stop the license crap, and benefit from all the free software that is available, including KDE, while lawyers tear their hairs off upon how to interpret a line in a license.
And I really wish people would stop talking about "non-free" for something that *is* free (in all meanings of the term).
Have fun with KDE ! 1.91 will be available in a matter of hours/days! This comment posted with konqueror:)
You DO realize that X is a server, right ? Then why do you run it ? The DCOP server is a server for inter-process communication, but only between apps running under the same X server. Besides, DCOP is implemented of top of ICE, which what is used for session management everywhere now. So there is no additionnal security risk than an X server, which you already do.
Stop saying nonsense, please:). The dcopserver starts automatically now, you don't even see it. Besides, standalone apps that you launch from another environment probably won't need - except if they use the "unique application" feature. All you need ARE the libraries.
Nah, you got that wrong. You'll still be able to download and run a KDE 2.x app even if you don't have the rest of KDE 2. dcopserver is auto-started if it's needed and it's not running, so you won't even see that happening. And it certainly requires no configuration.
"GPL means you can get the COMPLETE source code for every GPL'd program and use it 'as you like'"
Not as you like, since you can't make a closed source program out of it.
And the same is true with the QPL. Just the same. You can get the complete source code, and you can't make a closed source program [unless you pay] - so if you don't pay, QPL==GPL.
Slashdot Mirror
You must have tried KOffice long long ago. Equations are now part of the text, in KWord.
The 'blue screen of death' screensaver ? It's part of KDE already.
They co-exist.
See http://www.kde.org/kde1-and-kde2.html.
YES, KDE developers are very grateful for Corel's input ! :-)
I can even prove it : I've digged up the best cvs comment about that: look at this one and this one.
The truth is not always well written in a nice article linked from Slashdot, it's sometimes hidden in CVS logs
PLEASE, don't mix up people writing articles about KDE and KDE developers.
Most KDE developers are *grateful* about the comments, suggestions and bug reports sent by the Linux QA team.
This guy ('dep') can't stand Corel, that's his problem. Too bad really, because I like all the articles he wrote on KDE - except this one.
David Faure.
You're right in what you say, but you don't see the point. The major difference is about what is used for embedding components. The CORBA solution (be it Mico or ORBit) means that the component is provided by another process, whereas with KParts (the current KDE solution), the component is a shared library, loaded in process, which turns out to be a lot more stable.
We didn't replace CORBA(MICO) with DCOP, we replaced it with KParts. DCOP is mainly used for IPC and scripting - and yes, I agree with you that this is needed, whichever solution.
We are working on stability, don't worry. And no, I don't believe the code base and the complexity makes it impossible to achieve. On the contrary, it's a lot cleaner than for instance kfm's code, which was just a PITA.
Some things can NOT be fixed in kfm, due to its design. With konqueror, however, everything is possible, since the design is a *lot* cleaner.
BTW: about Qt 2.x / Qt 1.x: you can have both on the same system and still use KDE 1.x :)
What about HTML 4, CSS, Java, Javascript ? :-)
konqueror does much more than kfm did.
See http://www.konqueror.org for more info.
I so much agree with you ! Very well said. :-) :) )
What about getting a slashdot account, to post at 1 instead of 0 ?
(I'm posting this one so that people browsing at 1 wonder what I'm replying to
"Just the font overriding" ? :-). konqueror has two buttons in the toolbar, one for increasing the font size and one for decreasing it.
Install it, dude
Interesting ideas about killfiles and such.
What is this ? A license contest to see which one is best ? Of course the GPL is better. Note that KDE is GPL, not QPL :). But that's not the point, since the QPL allows to do what we all want with KDE and Qt : use it, distribute it, and modify it, all for free and freely.
I indeed withdraw that answer - to a very unexpected question, which caught me by surprised (this was an oral interview, not a written one, and I misunderstood the question).
Please read the thread "pathetic licensing answer".
Is this different ? Just as much as "free" and "commercial" is different. :)
Microsoft bundles things together to sell them all and make sure you don't go and see other vendors.
KDE _offers_ many bundled components, but that doesn't mean you have to use them all if you don't want to.
Example: if you have the "kview" image viewer, konqueror can use it to show images embedded in a window. Fine. If you don't have it, it will launch your preferred image viewer instead, be it xv, ee, gimp or vi.
Face it: the biggest need on Linux at the moment, in terms of software, is for a free and full-featured office suite. KOffice is on its way to answer exactly that. Should we not work on KOffice because Microsoft used MSOffice to tie people to Windows ? Nonsense.
The GPL enforces that what if you base your software on a GPL application, you release it as GPL.
The QPL enforces the same thing, you must open-source the software based on Qt [unless you buy a license]. So this is not an additional restriction !
"Give trolltech a copy": this is the case for any open source software ! You don't only give a copy to some people, you give a copy to the whole world !
I really hate this license crap. Can't you see that both the GPL and the QPL aim to the same thing ? They both enforce that derived work is also free and opensource.
Yes, KDE's license *is* GPL/LGPL, nothing else.
This license nonsense really makes me sick. Talk about fanatism...
About the second comment: I love being quoted out of context. Re-read what I meant by that : the fact that it's interpretation is really subjective, since not two people interpret it the same way. So this "incompatibility" is far from being proven. What makes you think there is one ? Because RMS says so ? Sometimes I feel like there is a dictator, "free" software or not...
> "never ever allow scripting in konqueror"
Why ? What's wrong with scripting "open a new window, open that URL inside it", and even "type my login and password for that site" ? As long as _I_ run the script, where's the problem ?
For too many people, scripting == security risk, without really thinking about it. No. But automatically launching untrusted scripts (such as those received by e-mail) is a security risk, yes. That's why kmail doesn't launch scripts.
I guess he made English mistakes so that I wouldn't sound too bad :-)
You wish that KDE core applications were developed out of CVS ? With the changes that happen in kdelibs quite often - to build a better API, and because of all the new stuff in KDE 2.0 (KParts, DCOP, XMLGUI, etc.) - this is almost impossible. What you gain from having apps in CVS is that they can be fixed by many people, especially those who change kdelibs.
Out of CVS, it's up to the author to fix his app to cope with the changes, and _that_ can be piss him off a lot, obviously. This is not about "controlling", this is effectively about helping....
To answer the more personal comments, KDE is definitely nobody's fiefdom. My answer (which I can't remember) may have sounded not nice and I apologize for that, but the idea of developing core apps out of CVS really doesn't make much sense. You want to "open more" the development by making it private ? About KDE 2 apps that are not in CVS : from 1.91 onwards, they should be able to compile and run on top of KDE. The API shouldn't change anymore. No need to wait for the official 2.0. Finally, I'm not a paid fulltime developer... yet.
Exactly. Scripting works by inter-process (DCOP) calls. /" in its DCOP interface :-)
So forget all those talks about "viruses and other scripts that can wipe out your hard disk". All you can do is control a KDE application - and no, konqueror doesn't offer "rm
Yes, I wish I could rephrase my answer on that. I was totally surprised by the question - note that this was *before* the $3K thing, since the interview happened on June 1st.
I replied to "Why Qt uses the QPL and not the GPL", not really to "what to do about that alleged incompatibility" - sorry about that.
So, what do I have to say about that incompatibility ? That people should look at what they want/need. KDE is free and open-source, since it's GPL/LGPL. Qt is free and open-source, since it's QPL. Isn't that what you want to use ? Free and opensource software ?
RMS may find an incompatibility between those two licenses because of the way *he* interprets them, but remember that the GPL hasn't been tried in court yet, and interpretations vary. Why does everyone here (and elsewhere), dreaming of "freedom", blindly obey what RMS says about licenses ?
There _may_ be a slight incompability somewhere (I'm not a lawyer !), and I hope it will be solved at some point, but I don't see how that prevents debian from shipping KDE Qt !
Both are free to use, distribute, hack, etc. Isn't that what you want from free software ?
So stop the license crap, and benefit from all the free software that is available, including KDE, while lawyers tear their hairs off upon how to interpret a line in a license.
And I really wish people would stop talking about "non-free" for something that *is* free (in all meanings of the term).
Have fun with KDE ! 1.91 will be available in a matter of hours/days!This comment posted with konqueror
You DO realize that X is a server, right ? Then why do you run it ?
The DCOP server is a server for inter-process communication, but only between apps running under the same X server. Besides, DCOP is implemented of top of ICE, which what is used for session management everywhere now.
So there is no additionnal security risk than an X server, which you already do.
Stop saying nonsense, please :). The dcopserver starts automatically now, you don't even see it. Besides, standalone apps that you launch from another environment probably won't need - except if they use the "unique application" feature.
All you need ARE the libraries.
I couldn't have said it better :-)
Thanks.
Nah, you got that wrong.
You'll still be able to download and run a KDE 2.x app even if you don't have the rest of KDE 2.
dcopserver is auto-started if it's needed and it's not running, so you won't even see that happening. And it certainly requires no configuration.
Not as you like, since you can't make a closed source program out of it.
And the same is true with the QPL. Just the same. You can get the complete source code, and you can't make a closed source program [unless you pay] - so if you don't pay, QPL==GPL.
Oh god. I'm sick of this.