Else you use native widget set, and then (if this is a cross platform thing) you have functions that merely call other functions. In extenso, you have much overhead.
Else you use widget emulation, like in KDE with Qt, without uneeded overhead, but without widget set.
Else you force everyone to use the same desktop, so that only one library is needed, as with Windows.
Sorry if none of these solutions are optimal. I think GUI emulation (like done by Qt) is the best, but it's only my very humble and personal opinion.
Have you ever heard of a thing known as "kernel" and that is needed by Lilo, Grub, Loadlin or whatever to boot a computer ? Btw, do you know what Linux really is ? A kernel. Just a kernel. What we call Linux is in fact the Linux kernel, plus the GNU tools, plus everything that you you want and can run on it, like KDE for example.
A word of advice: if you have enough room on your harddrive, let KDE and GNOME together. They can cohabit peacefully, and this way, if you want to use a KApplication under GNOME, or vice-versa, you can, because you have all required library. Better to have something we don't need than to need something we don't have.
> Hey, we still consider encryption "munitions." That's so stupid! I know there is also lots of bullshit in french cryptography laws, but I believe it was recently fixed. Not sure, however. But I've no time now to search documentation about this.
> I wonder if it's legal for a US e-signature to be used in a non-US country? I'm afraid it depends mainly of your congressmen.
From what we can see in some southern countries (or am I under the influence of my "european leftist propaganda" ?), with creationism teached as a theory as valid scientifically as Darwin's evolution, I would have posted this joke differently: "I work for the gov't and I confirm we have plans to make bible reading obligatory each days in all federal states. We have been working very hard to hide the truth from people (that the Earth is not 6000 years old) and now we need to act on the next phase of our plan".
Incorrect: only KApplication using DCOP needs the DCOP server. No developer is forced to use DCOP when they code a KDE application.
Now, have a look at which applications does logically require DCOP: mainly KOffice and Konqueror. Lemme say you, if you want to use KOffice, it will be stupid not to install KDE. If you want no to have KDE, it will be stupid to want to use KOffice. The same is true for mainly all other DCOP-based KApps.
Now, a good programmer can put some test in his code to check at launch time if a DCOP server is available and then act regardingly, it could then just display a massage box warning that desktop communication is not available, and avoid each call to DCOP stuff.
Finally, you said "It was bad enough when the kdelibs were required". Yes. Sure. All program should be statically linked with all libraries it needs, and never call.so files. This allow a very powerful and unnecessary bloat in the RAM. I think that you'd also want to have X working withou xlibs, gnome working without gnomelibs, and your whole system working without (g)libc. Go to/lib,/usr/lib, and/usr/local/lib and do some rm -rf *, then reboot your system.
From your post, there is one thing funny. And even ironical: "Isn't there a parallel with Office's non-standard dialogs and widgets, and KDE's different-from-other-GUIs dialogs and widgets". I can't retrieve this document, so there is no link, but I remember reading an archived version of Matthias Ettrich's call for programmer: one of his argument for launching the KDE project (btw, that was meaning "Kool Desktop Environment". Ettrich thought of this as a codename, because it was a little sucking, but the name stayed and the official version is that "K" doesn't mean anything) was that all widgets and dialogboxes ware behaving differently. So, he says, we need a true Desktop Environment rather than a mere Windows Manager with an united look and feel, a lone widget library (instead of Tk+Motif+Athena... There wasn't GTK+ at this time). KDE was the first project to try to use a "standard".
About the rest of your question: embedding application is aimed at reducing bloatware. With OLE2, each application (says Word for example) contain subsets of the other (says Excel). When you edit a spreadsheet in Word, it's not Excel which is used, but a small Excel clone located inside word. So Office get bloated with redundant stuff. This will be avoided in KOffice. There isn't more risk in a script than in a normal program. The risk is how it is managed.
Finally, MS was not condamned for integrating closely things in Windows, but rather for using proprietary tricks (non documented API functions, of functions non mentionned at all) to prevent their competitor from releasing product with the same integration. Hey, you prefer to use something that is seamlessly integrated or that is just an alien program ? KDE being free software (despite what says some trolls), this I-hide-my-secret behavior is impossible. And, trust me, if someone in, says, Gnome, decided to code some bridges to have Gnome Office integrated with KDE as transparently as KOffice, or vice-versa (KO for Gnome) with Bonobo/DCOP-etc translators, the KDE team will applause and thanks. In the same situation, Microsoft will modify its standard to have the bridges not work anymore.
This remind me, one day, after receiving agressive comments about my english, I had thoughts about changing my/. sig to something like:
This comment is written in Microsoft English. If you can't read it, please upgrade your brain to a Microsoft Brain with Microsoft English supported.
Stupid joke aside, you are discovering that english as the new lingua franca means also bastardized english.
And sorry if I'm not clear.
Re:Click-through license at download site
on
Copyrant
·
· Score: 1
The big difference between this click-wrap and UCITA click wrap is that it is mentionned here that the software is free as in speech and as in beer. UCITA also remove all developers (publisher may be more appropriate) responsabilities, but the typical UCITA license is for closed source commercial software.
Re:Spread the message, brothers
on
Copyrant
·
· Score: 1
This isn't true of all countries. In my France, for example, one good reason not to adopt an USA law is that it comes from the USA...
Now, imagine a country (say mine, as their are more and more governmental move toward adoption by all administration (and thus, protection) of Free Software) where Free Software developers are protected by law from that kind of threat. Now imagine that their software is available on Internet (okay). Anybody from another country can download it, but trial will be impossible.
And we can always use click-wrap license to protect ourselves: "By accessing the download service, you hereby agree not to sue anyone invloved in any Software you're about to download here. There is no exception nor special clause to this agreement. The source for the code is supplied so you can verify before using if this software is suitable for you, and as you can download it for no cost, you don't place yourself in a customer situation. No reclamations will ever be accepted. If this don't please you, logoff, go elsewhere and don't use our software." or something like that.
Re:Spread the message, brothers
on
Copyrant
·
· Score: 1
From my french point of view, I can see my government is making moves after moves toward Free Software. These new obnoxious licenses will hasten their steps, I think.
Politician not having power compared to huges companies is a question of mentality: in the anglosaxon paradigm, government are intrinsically opressive, whereas giant corpos are good for people because they don't want to lose customers. In french mentality, giant corpos are greedy things that respect only their major shareholders and grovernments are here to protect citizens. If a gov't stop to obey this duty, there is a revolution.
Everything is clearer, now...
on
Copyrant
·
· Score: 1
> Microsoft clearly has long wanted it to be such a burden to "restore" a system that's been upgraded that customers would simply buy a new, full license to the latest OS rather than go through a multiple-step install. That's also why Windows "deteriorate" and even Microsoft recognize Windows should be reinstalled periodically...
[I hereby grant full permission for any and all to retransmit, archive, republish and broadcast all of my postings to Slashdot, past, present and future]
Good.sig !;)
Re:Spread the message, brothers
on
Copyrant
·
· Score: 2
> Not so naieve, please. If you look at the big picture, you'll see the OSS movement will be screwed by the UCITA. Please don't forget the UCITA is an USA law which only apply in USA territories.
If USA people get trouble because of UCITA whereas the rest of the world enjoy active and prolific Free Software computing, well, maybe your congressmen's neurons will jump to the conclusion that UCITA is bad and should be dropped. I hope so for you. But for now, even if the FSF is based in USA, Free Software is sufficiently well spread to survive without the benevolence of US laws...
> No shrink-wrapped license? Too bad, all liability is for the programmer. THIS PROGRAM IS DISTRIBUTED IN THE HOPE THAT IT WILL BE USEFUL, BUT WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; WITHOUT EVEN THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULIAR PURPOSE.
Re:You've only got yourselves to blame
on
Copyrant
·
· Score: 1
This will only enforce piracy as the only viable way of using proprietary software. My arguments are here.
And please don't drop bullshit: not everyone is a programmer. With Free Software, people will get payed to create a software that don't already exist, and this will then result in more Free Software -you don't believe me ? I have examples.
A sysadmin job is not only to repair broken computers: it is also to program tools for his society, and these tools can be Free Software without any problem. Free Software is not about programmer being not paid. Are the coders at Redhat, Mandrake, Debian, etc, not paid ? Ask them. And distromakers are not the only one to subvention Free Software.
Re:This it intended to stop dual booting Linux/BSD
on
Copyrant
·
· Score: 1
Yes, we won't ahev dual booting Linux/Windows.
We will be forced to have simple booting Linux
Replace Linux by *BSD, Hurd, or even any proprietary OS without such a bullshit license (BeOS ?) if you want.
This is ultimately dangerous for them.
on
Copyrant
·
· Score: 1
OK, you bought a PC with MS-Windows installed. The software crash, and you must reinstall the whole OS. Looks not too much a weird situation. You can't reinstall Windows from the crippled ISO image. But you bought Windows nonetheless. Will you have any remorse at re-installing Windows from a pirated CD ? No, of course. Hey, you did buy that thing. So these licensing mess will reinforce piracy more than fighting it.
The other reason why it's dangerous for these societies is that Free Software will be even more compelling. When 99% of the worlwide computers will run Linux, *BSD or Hurd (it should be ready one day or another...), people at Microsoft, Adobe and the like may try to consider the situation from another point of view. And, by the way, each day Free Software get improved. We can't say so of Microsoft things. Have a look at KOffice or Gnome Office: it won't last long until MS Office won't have any advantage anymore.
Troll Tech don't produce KDE. The KDE license problem is not the fact of Troll Tech. Your conspiracy theory just can't work (as much other conspiracy theory). Yes, that's not a flame. Just a bullshit.
> Thus, the GPL is compatible with a number of licenses, including (I believe) the new BSD, X, Apache, and Artistic licenses. According to the FSF, the Apache license and the Artistic license are incompatible with the GPL. Perl is available under both GPL and Artistic, so it is common to think the Artistic License is GPL compatible, because there are no problems with Perl. The QPL is the only GPL-incompatible free software license for which a sort of "legal hack" is provided by the FSF to remove icompatibility. This hack is: As a special exception, you have permission to link this program with the Qt library and distribute executables, as long as you follow the requirements of the GNU GPL in regard to all of the software in the executable aside from Qt. This is equivalent to what Guenter Bechly propose.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, think a little.
Sorry if none of these solutions are optimal. I think GUI emulation (like done by Qt) is the best, but it's only my very humble and personal opinion.
KDE is going to be the Killer Desktop Environment... But Gnome too, so... ;)
Can't you use <a href="http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~dbaron/cs s/test/results">some usable links</a> like this one ?
It would be better.
Have you ever heard of a thing known as "kernel" and that is needed by Lilo, Grub, Loadlin or whatever to boot a computer ? Btw, do you know what Linux really is ? A kernel. Just a kernel. What we call Linux is in fact the Linux kernel, plus the GNU tools, plus everything that you you want and can run on it, like KDE for example.
A word of advice: if you have enough room on your harddrive, let KDE and GNOME together. They can cohabit peacefully, and this way, if you want to use a KApplication under GNOME, or vice-versa, you can, because you have all required library.
Better to have something we don't need than to need something we don't have.
Don't mind, troll alerts are blossoming everywhere. Look at most of TRoLL's production.
No more, no more, I believe. But I don't have more time, computer auto deconnection in 30 seconds.
> Hey, we still consider encryption "munitions."
That's so stupid! I know there is also lots of bullshit in french cryptography laws, but I believe it was recently fixed. Not sure, however. But I've no time now to search documentation about this.
> I wonder if it's legal for a US e-signature to be used in a non-US country?
I'm afraid it depends mainly of your congressmen.
Slightly off-topic, but I want this to be voted.
From what we can see in some southern countries (or am I under the influence of my "european leftist propaganda" ?), with creationism teached as a theory as valid scientifically as Darwin's evolution, I would have posted this joke differently: "I work for the gov't and I confirm we have plans to make bible reading obligatory each days in all federal states. We have been working very hard to hide the truth from people (that the Earth is not 6000 years old) and now we need to act on the next phase of our plan".
I can sense flames coming...
This is already voted in France. This time, it's yankees who are late...
Incorrect: only KApplication using DCOP needs the DCOP server. No developer is forced to use DCOP when they code a KDE application.
Now, have a look at which applications does logically require DCOP: mainly KOffice and Konqueror. Lemme say you, if you want to use KOffice, it will be stupid not to install KDE. If you want no to have KDE, it will be stupid to want to use KOffice. The same is true for mainly all other DCOP-based KApps.
Now, a good programmer can put some test in his code to check at launch time if a DCOP server is available and then act regardingly, it could then just display a massage box warning that desktop communication is not available, and avoid each call to DCOP stuff.
Finally, you said "It was bad enough when the kdelibs were required". Yes. Sure. All program should be statically linked with all libraries it needs, and never call .so files. This allow a very powerful and unnecessary bloat in the RAM. I think that you'd also want to have X working withou xlibs, gnome working without gnomelibs, and your whole system working without (g)libc. Go to /lib, /usr/lib, and /usr/local/lib and do some rm -rf *, then reboot your system.
From your post, there is one thing funny. And even ironical: "Isn't there a parallel with Office's non-standard dialogs and widgets, and KDE's different-from-other-GUIs dialogs and widgets". I can't retrieve this document, so there is no link, but I remember reading an archived version of Matthias Ettrich's call for programmer: one of his argument for launching the KDE project (btw, that was meaning "Kool Desktop Environment". Ettrich thought of this as a codename, because it was a little sucking, but the name stayed and the official version is that "K" doesn't mean anything) was that all widgets and dialogboxes ware behaving differently. So, he says, we need a true Desktop Environment rather than a mere Windows Manager with an united look and feel, a lone widget library (instead of Tk+Motif+Athena... There wasn't GTK+ at this time). KDE was the first project to try to use a "standard".
About the rest of your question: embedding application is aimed at reducing bloatware. With OLE2, each application (says Word for example) contain subsets of the other (says Excel). When you edit a spreadsheet in Word, it's not Excel which is used, but a small Excel clone located inside word. So Office get bloated with redundant stuff. This will be avoided in KOffice.
There isn't more risk in a script than in a normal program. The risk is how it is managed.
Finally, MS was not condamned for integrating closely things in Windows, but rather for using proprietary tricks (non documented API functions, of functions non mentionned at all) to prevent their competitor from releasing product with the same integration. Hey, you prefer to use something that is seamlessly integrated or that is just an alien program ?
KDE being free software (despite what says some trolls), this I-hide-my-secret behavior is impossible. And, trust me, if someone in, says, Gnome, decided to code some bridges to have Gnome Office integrated with KDE as transparently as KOffice, or vice-versa (KO for Gnome) with Bonobo/DCOP-etc translators, the KDE team will applause and thanks. In the same situation, Microsoft will modify its standard to have the bridges not work anymore.
This remind me, one day, after receiving agressive comments about my english, I had thoughts about changing my /. sig to something like:
This comment is written in Microsoft English. If you can't read it, please upgrade your brain to a Microsoft Brain with Microsoft English supported.
Stupid joke aside, you are discovering that english as the new lingua franca means also bastardized english.
And sorry if I'm not clear.
The big difference between this click-wrap and UCITA click wrap is that it is mentionned here that the software is free as in speech and as in beer. UCITA also remove all developers (publisher may be more appropriate) responsabilities, but the typical UCITA license is for closed source commercial software.
This isn't true of all countries. In my France, for example, one good reason not to adopt an USA law is that it comes from the USA...
Now, imagine a country (say mine, as their are more and more governmental move toward adoption by all administration (and thus, protection) of Free Software) where Free Software developers are protected by law from that kind of threat. Now imagine that their software is available on Internet (okay). Anybody from another country can download it, but trial will be impossible.
And we can always use click-wrap license to protect ourselves: "By accessing the download service, you hereby agree not to sue anyone invloved in any Software you're about to download here. There is no exception nor special clause to this agreement. The source for the code is supplied so you can verify before using if this software is suitable for you, and as you can download it for no cost, you don't place yourself in a customer situation. No reclamations will ever be accepted. If this don't please you, logoff, go elsewhere and don't use our software." or something like that.
From my french point of view, I can see my government is making moves after moves toward Free Software. These new obnoxious licenses will hasten their steps, I think.
Politician not having power compared to huges companies is a question of mentality: in the anglosaxon paradigm, government are intrinsically opressive, whereas giant corpos are good for people because they don't want to lose customers. In french mentality, giant corpos are greedy things that respect only their major shareholders and grovernments are here to protect citizens. If a gov't stop to obey this duty, there is a revolution.
> Microsoft clearly has long wanted it to be such a burden to "restore" a system that's been upgraded that customers would simply buy a new, full license to the latest OS rather than go through a multiple-step install.
That's also why Windows "deteriorate" and even Microsoft recognize Windows should be reinstalled periodically...
Does these guys have a clue that it will only erode their position ? I doubt so. They wouldn't act so stupidly else.
Good .sig ! ;)
> Not so naieve, please. If you look at the big picture, you'll see the OSS movement will be screwed by the UCITA.
Please don't forget the UCITA is an USA law which only apply in USA territories.
If USA people get trouble because of UCITA whereas the rest of the world enjoy active and prolific Free Software computing, well, maybe your congressmen's neurons will jump to the conclusion that UCITA is bad and should be dropped. I hope so for you. But for now, even if the FSF is based in USA, Free Software is sufficiently well spread to survive without the benevolence of US laws...
> No shrink-wrapped license? Too bad, all liability is for the programmer.
THIS PROGRAM IS DISTRIBUTED IN THE HOPE THAT IT WILL BE USEFUL, BUT WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; WITHOUT EVEN THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULIAR PURPOSE.
This will only enforce piracy as the only viable way of using proprietary software. My arguments are here.
And please don't drop bullshit: not everyone is a programmer. With Free Software, people will get payed to create a software that don't already exist, and this will then result in more Free Software -you don't believe me ? I have examples.
A sysadmin job is not only to repair broken computers: it is also to program tools for his society, and these tools can be Free Software without any problem. Free Software is not about programmer being not paid. Are the coders at Redhat, Mandrake, Debian, etc, not paid ? Ask them. And distromakers are not the only one to subvention Free Software.
Yes, we won't ahev dual booting Linux/Windows.
We will be forced to have simple booting Linux
Replace Linux by *BSD, Hurd, or even any proprietary OS without such a bullshit license (BeOS ?) if you want.
My argument are here.
OK, you bought a PC with MS-Windows installed. The software crash, and you must reinstall the whole OS. Looks not too much a weird situation. You can't reinstall Windows from the crippled ISO image. But you bought Windows nonetheless. Will you have any remorse at re-installing Windows from a pirated CD ? No, of course. Hey, you did buy that thing. So these licensing mess will reinforce piracy more than fighting it.
The other reason why it's dangerous for these societies is that Free Software will be even more compelling. When 99% of the worlwide computers will run Linux, *BSD or Hurd (it should be ready one day or another...), people at Microsoft, Adobe and the like may try to consider the situation from another point of view. And, by the way, each day Free Software get improved. We can't say so of Microsoft things. Have a look at KOffice or Gnome Office: it won't last long until MS Office won't have any advantage anymore.
No, then the US will be the only developed country which refuse to pay...
There are less europe-bashing here that I expected. Maybe it is because neither France nor Germany were directly named.
Troll Tech don't produce KDE. The KDE license problem is not the fact of Troll Tech. Your conspiracy theory just can't work (as much other conspiracy theory). Yes, that's not a flame. Just a bullshit.
> Thus, the GPL is compatible with a number of licenses, including (I believe) the new BSD, X, Apache, and Artistic licenses. :
According to the FSF, the Apache license and the Artistic license are incompatible with the GPL. Perl is available under both GPL and Artistic, so it is common to think the Artistic License is GPL compatible, because there are no problems with Perl. The QPL is the only GPL-incompatible free software license for which a sort of "legal hack" is provided by the FSF to remove icompatibility. This hack is
As a special exception, you have permission to link this program with the Qt library and distribute executables, as long as you follow the requirements of the GNU GPL in regard to all of the software in the executable aside from Qt.
This is equivalent to what Guenter Bechly propose.