> I don't know how many this means but on sych a large project it could be a monumental task. No. Just a Perl script who looks in COPYING files and add the required exception. Make it recursive to look in all projects subdirs. No KDE developer will want their program to be incompatible.
Oh, of course it's more a joke than anything else, but as someone stated elsewhere, the only "I don't want it" case was with Kimp, a KDE version of Gimp. The result ? There is no Kimp.
From the annotated QPL license: 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. This is to avoid problems with companies that try to hide the source. If we get to know about it we want to be able to get hold of the code even if we are not users. In this way, if somebody tries to cheat and we get to know we can release the code to the public.
Yes. It specify also These items, when distributed, (6); and If the items are not available to the general public (clause c). For what I understand, it means this is only required for closed source software, as it is restricted in the beginning of the sixth clause to source not available to the general public, but as the 6 says, nonetheless distributed.
I think this clause c was more aimed at modifications of Qt than at program linked with it. They should rephrase this. It is totally unlogical for them to ask source for programs developed with their library if it is not their library.
False. The QPL don't require you to send your code to Troll Tech. Absolutely no. It just requires you to let the software owner (Troll Tech for Qt) integrate changes you made in the software (Qt). If you write a program and publish it under the QPL, the software owner will be you, not Troll Tech. If you write a project that links with Qt, it is not a modification of Qt and you absolutely don't need to send it to Troll Tech.
> Can I modify the Qtlib for my own personal and commerical purposes and make a profit off it, or change it any way I see fit and then distrubate the re-modified version, even if this competes with Troll Tech on a commerical level? Yes. If you intend to distribute your modified version as closed source, you need to buy a special license, but as long as you stick with a QPLed modified version, you can
Distribute binaries with the same name (libqt)
Distribute sources with another name (you can just add a prefix to each file with a script).
> Debian is like Jesus walking around in the desert, they know it ALL could be their's, but at what price? KDE2 looks like a very seducative temptation, I know the Debian team has been looking at it naked in the shower from a small hole in the wall, will Debian abstain from sin, or will they need a tissue? No comments. I just hope for your mental sanity this is humor.
> Come on, the name of the company is Troll Tech, doesn't there NAME tell your something? Trolls are mythological creatures very popular in norway. Norvegian giant offshore oil station are also labeled Troll-something. Your argument here is that, as "troll" is a common insult on various h4xx0r forum and newsgroup, the 31337 troll definition is the only one valid.
A sort of learning search engine that receive feedback from users ("this site isn't about what it claim to be, don't show it as a possible answer", "this site is excellent and very complete", "this site is nice but unreadable without browser so-or-so", etc). That can be the future. Of course it will need lot of negative feedbacks unbalanced by positives and some other checksto definetly dismiss a site, otherwise we can imagine a way of making "softwar": imagine some corporate making a script sending bad feedback to burry a concurrent website...
Sidenote: IIRC, "Softwar" is the title of a novel, so this wordplay is not mine.
Please, is this a joke ? Say it isn't. Slashdot is a site for news and discussion about these news. There is no need for off-topic things. Slashdot readers are not crackers (look at http://www.2600.com instead). You can break code with DeCSS if you find it. Noone's going to help you with that.
The people who told you/. was a 31337 h4xOr w4r3z bunch were misinformed, or lies to you.
Now, say it was a joke. I reply to this because there are not many comment at this time (3, including two off-topic), so there aren't more interesting debate here for now.
Yes. But there is another thing MS is doing very well: pissing us of with proprietary standard. Peripherals for the X-Box won't be standard USB, but a specially modified MS USB. Games for Windows PC will need some modifications to run on X-Box, not that these modification were absolutely necessary on the technical side, just that it will allow William Henry Gates III to earn royalties.
No surprise: MS is doing what it has always been doing: [censored] us.
Don't buy X-Box. Don't caution proprietary joypad format, don't give money to BG each time you buy a non-MS game, don't get fucked off by Bill.
Yes, of course Unix is a good development platform. But the definition of an IDE contain the word "Integrated". What you describe is sure powerful, but it's not an IDE. An IDE user want consistent interface and complete documentation for editing, debugging, compiling and creating packages. A shell can't do that, because the primary purpose of shells is to interpret commands, not to be an IDE alternative.
BTW, KDevelop who is becoming a very popular IDE (and has now GNOME support) allow to use grep from context menu, to run script after adding them in the "Tool" menu, and other. The only thing it still lacks (and all IDE I've heard about lacks also) is the powerful regexp capacity of *emacs and *vi*. You need to close the file, run vim or xemacs to edit,:wq (or C-X C-S C-X C-X), and reopen it. Boring.
> Perhaps someone on the Mac platform will embed the rendering component into a native Mac app like they will being doing with GNOME and (I think) KDE. That is the optimal solution IMHO. Yes. But I've never heard of the "and (I think) KDE" part. I doubt the Mozilla guys will create a special "Kozilla" rendering component when KDE2 will have its own very promising browser.
The feature I really like in an IDE is online help and reference manual prettily displayed without having to fire up man in a console. And the abilty to extand it by writing scripts that can then be launched via a toolbar or menu. For these two reasons, an IDE is nicer than just bare bone editor.
Personnaly (and some trolls will hate me for that) I like KDevelop for C++ editing. There is not too much "IDE quirks", and I don't use them much neither. But the integrated help browser and the ability to jump to a function declaration by selecting its name in the class browser are really cool stuffs. (Oh, and we don't have to write by hand the complexes Makefiles needed by large configure-able project. A good point, too.)
Komodo will have integrated help. That is sufficient to make it interesting. But I hadn't seen mention of PHP. Too sad.
And there is FIPS, working under DOS. I used it when installing my first Linux (a RedHat). Lots of fears before actually trying, but absolutely no problem. Sure, there's no GUI.
Impressive, but why the hell did the navigation panel on the left side use IMAGES instead of plain text ? I know that have an ALT thingies, but, hey, these images weren't really necessary. And users have more control of font size and readability than on images.
And, just for fun, try to validate this GNOME site. I may be a poor web designer, but MY HTML is always valid!
A good C++ toolkit is not too slow. Else it's a bad C++ toolkit. This will looks like trolling (and it's not) but, for example, the TrollTech guys (when we speak of trolling, actual trolls can be nearby;) ) claim applications converted from Motif to Qt are faster with their baby. Yes, I know it can be just pure self-promotion. Of course, C++ tend to be slower than C, and C slower than assembly, but when you use function library, you can end up with a greatly optimised C++ function being faster than a less well-designed plain C equivalent. And with Sawmill instead of E, Gnome will finally deserve its faster-than-KDE reputation.
I know we can't download a source tarball of MS-Windows+Explorer+MS-Office, but if it was possible, it wouldn't be weighting only a little more than 30 megs. Even if the base OS files are removed, keeping only GUI, applications and MFC.
Windows 2000 have a 20-megabyte-heavy kernel. Not Linux.
And, seriously, I doubt Gnome and KDE can be as bloated as windows. I've recently downloaded the whole KDE 2ß sources-tarball, with all packages, including the Qt library, french i18n packages, and unecessary stuff (like kdegames). Total around 30 megs. I know we can't download a source tarball of MS-Windows+Explorer+MS-Office weighting only a little more than 30 megs. Even if the base OS files are removed, keeping only GUI, applications and MFC.
Oh, that silly "start" menu. Hey, it is in fact usable once you've customized it and move all entry to another place. I typically organized it by themes (applications, utilities, multimedia, internet, help, etc) whereas things always want to be installed by editors. Each time another software is installed, I have to move (and, often, rename) its help to put them in the Help folder, to keep my Apps folder clean. The Start menu is a pain (and put "stop" in "start" is a so strange idea). Gnome and KDE have a more rationnal approach of this menu, and we seldom need to have more than two levels of submenu (the first being the launcher menu). Happily, we can in Win98 create a "Quicklaunch" bar, with icons for what we need. This has been obviously copied from Gnome and KDE.
Well, that's a long reply. And rather interesting, it's a shame I can't moderate yet. Hum.
Basically, the only thing I have to reply is that I still find Explorer/IE integration badly done. When I use KFM to browse, it keeps my local file system tree, and I can make drag'n'drop to download directly file where I want them to be, in only one window. This is not possible with E/IE, because there's an application switching: look: menu changes, toolbar changes, even ergonomy can change. So, it's not a true integration.
Oh, and please, capitalize properly acronyms: KDE, OS/2, etc. GNOME maybe an exception because "gnome" is an actual word, so the Gnome graphy don't hurt the eyes.
KFM is KDE1's file manager and browser. Konqueror is a major rewrite faster and enhanced for KDE2. AFAIK, Amaya (see w3.org for info on that. Opera is available for Linux, or will be soon. 'Never heard of iCab and WebThing. This only prove that the C¦Net article, saying "Corel Linux has Netscape, whereas MacOS 9 has both Netscape and IE" was too much restrictive and approximative.
I hadn't said Mac weren't secure, I just said the argument "because each virtuel desktop is protected by a password" is surprising. If I understand it correctly, that means that the multi user things is made by virtual desktops, whereas on Linux you can have multiple users with each multiple v-desk. That doesn't make Linux less secure, since switching user (with su or such) does requires password. On the technical security side (getting root, exploiting, etc) I don't know MacOS enough to have an opinion. I just think, though, getting root don't require to use a CLI, particularly on a system without CLI. Maybe some kind of BackOrifice tools for Mac are possible, though I never heard of one.
OK, thanks for the hint. What i was saying about hacking was a response to this: While I'm on the soapbox, I might as well say it, MacOSX IS going to be the OS that people will have a hard time complaining about. The kernel is Mach, which is BSD compatible. The kernel is also open-source, and thus, hackable (See Darwin). Is has:
1) MacOS interface.
2) UNIX reliability.
3) UNIX compatability (command line programs should compile without complaint as they would on FreeBSD, X Window server is availible as an option)
4) A great selection of business applications.
5) Runs on fast, pretty hardware.
I could even go on to speculate that it should be possible to write support for PPCLinux executables into the kernel, the same way that X86 Linux executables will run on FreeBSD. As I understood that, we were speaking of complaint from anyone, not just mere "desktop user". And even a secretary can become bored of Aqua and want to theme it, no ?
For my last paragraph, I was just saying that running on fast and pretty hardware is not MacOS' exclusive privilege. And also that it can't work on old computer. So this point was pointless. I know I don't write english as good as if it was my mothertongue, so it's maybe why peoples have trouble catching what I'm trying to say.
Yes, but that was poorly made with MS. KFM, and the now-in-beta-stage-Konqueror, can browse web and ftp as they browse local file. That means you can drag'n'drop a link to file to the tree views on the left, or to an apps. With Explorer/IE, you (transparently) change the windows. Downloads must pass by a boring dialog boxe. The interface is not common. Then, it was not the combined interface that was complained at, but the inclusion of IE as a part of the core OS. As far as I know, KDE is not an operating system. You can use Linux without. Please don't take monopoly matters for interface matters. That's not the same thing.
Good. Just WHAT is the ALT+TAB equivalent on macs, to switch applications ? If someone can give me the answer, I'll be able to explain it to an aquaintance of mine who is suffering nervous breakdown each time he must use a mac.
Now, about the fact that MacOSX IS going to be the OS that people will have a hard time complaining about., I think they WILL be complaint about it. Want some easy ones ? Okay, the kernel is OSS, but not Cocoa, Carbon, Aqua, right ? A kernel is not everything in an OS, and it's one of the more frightening part to hack (for a beginning programmer). Will MacOS X include themability, for those who will dare not to like the Aqua interface ? Your fifth point (Runs on fast, pretty hardware) is not really the definitive killer argument. An OSOS (open source operating system) can run on fast and pretty hardware too. And also on ugly, old or slow hardware, if you have strong money limitations. Fast and pretty hardware is truly good, but it's also expensive. And when it's at last cheap, say three years after, but some part ages more quickly than other, well, it's magically became a old and slow hardware.
One of the argument of Corel for their promotion is that Corel Linux can be a server out-of-the-box. They should have put (at least) two install categories (like RedHat, Mandrake,...), but hey!, that would have been a "difficult to install" distro: you have to make yet another choice! Yet another click!!! Awful. A corporate sysadmin just can't handle such things.
Slashdot Mirror
> I don't know how many this means but on sych a large project it could be a monumental task.
No. Just a Perl script who looks in COPYING files and add the required exception. Make it recursive to look in all projects subdirs. No KDE developer will want their program to be incompatible.
Oh, of course it's more a joke than anything else, but as someone stated elsewhere, the only "I don't want it" case was with Kimp, a KDE version of Gimp. The result ? There is no Kimp.
From the annotated QPL license: 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.
This is to avoid problems with companies that try to hide the source. If we get to know about it we want to be able to get hold of the code even if we are not users. In this way, if somebody tries to cheat and we get to know we can release the code to the public.
RH and Debian DO distribute Qt. And, by the way, please write "Qt", not "QT". QT means QuickTime. Qt means nothing, apart being pronounced "cute".
Yes. It specify also These items, when distributed, (6); and If the items are not available to the general public (clause c). For what I understand, it means this is only required for closed source software, as it is restricted in the beginning of the sixth clause to source not available to the general public, but as the 6 says, nonetheless distributed.
I think this clause c was more aimed at modifications of Qt than at program linked with it. They should rephrase this. It is totally unlogical for them to ask source for programs developed with their library if it is not their library.
False. The QPL don't require you to send your code to Troll Tech. Absolutely no. It just requires you to let the software owner (Troll Tech for Qt) integrate changes you made in the software (Qt). If you write a program and publish it under the QPL, the software owner will be you, not Troll Tech. If you write a project that links with Qt, it is not a modification of Qt and you absolutely don't need to send it to Troll Tech.
> Can I modify the Qtlib for my own personal and commerical purposes and make a profit off it, or change it any way I see fit and then distrubate the re-modified version, even if this competes with Troll Tech on a commerical level?
Yes. If you intend to distribute your modified version as closed source, you need to buy a special license, but as long as you stick with a QPLed modified version, you can
- Distribute binaries with the same name (libqt)
- Distribute sources with another name (you can just add a prefix to each file with a script).
See http://www.trolltech.com/pr oducts/download/freelicense/ for more info.> Debian is like Jesus walking around in the desert, they know it ALL could be their's, but at what price?
KDE2 looks like a very seducative temptation, I know the Debian team has been looking at it naked in the shower from a small hole in the wall, will Debian abstain from sin, or will they need a tissue?
No comments. I just hope for your mental sanity this is humor.
> Come on, the name of the company is Troll Tech, doesn't there NAME tell your something?
Trolls are mythological creatures very popular in norway. Norvegian giant offshore oil station are also labeled Troll-something. Your argument here is that, as "troll" is a common insult on various h4xx0r forum and newsgroup, the 31337 troll definition is the only one valid.
A sort of learning search engine that receive feedback from users ("this site isn't about what it claim to be, don't show it as a possible answer", "this site is excellent and very complete", "this site is nice but unreadable without browser so-or-so", etc). That can be the future. Of course it will need lot of negative feedbacks unbalanced by positives and some other checksto definetly dismiss a site, otherwise we can imagine a way of making "softwar": imagine some corporate making a script sending bad feedback to burry a concurrent website...
Sidenote: IIRC, "Softwar" is the title of a novel, so this wordplay is not mine.
Ouch! It hurts!
Please, is this a joke ?
Say it isn't. Slashdot is a site for news and discussion about these news. There is no need for off-topic things. Slashdot readers are not crackers (look at http://www.2600.com instead). You can break code with DeCSS if you find it. Noone's going to help you with that.
The people who told you /. was a 31337 h4xOr w4r3z bunch were misinformed, or lies to you.
Now, say it was a joke. I reply to this because there are not many comment at this time (3, including two off-topic), so there aren't more interesting debate here for now.
Yes. But there is another thing MS is doing very well: pissing us of with proprietary standard. Peripherals for the X-Box won't be standard USB, but a specially modified MS USB. Games for Windows PC will need some modifications to run on X-Box, not that these modification were absolutely necessary on the technical side, just that it will allow William Henry Gates III to earn royalties.
No surprise: MS is doing what it has always been doing: [censored] us.
Don't buy X-Box. Don't caution proprietary joypad format, don't give money to BG each time you buy a non-MS game, don't get fucked off by Bill.
Yes, of course Unix is a good development platform. But the definition of an IDE contain the word "Integrated". What you describe is sure powerful, but it's not an IDE. An IDE user want consistent interface and complete documentation for editing, debugging, compiling and creating packages. A shell can't do that, because the primary purpose of shells is to interpret commands, not to be an IDE alternative.
BTW, KDevelop who is becoming a very popular IDE (and has now GNOME support) allow to use grep from context menu, to run script after adding them in the "Tool" menu, and other. The only thing it still lacks (and all IDE I've heard about lacks also) is the powerful regexp capacity of *emacs and *vi*. You need to close the file, run vim or xemacs to edit, :wq (or C-X C-S C-X C-X), and reopen it. Boring.
> Perhaps someone on the Mac platform will embed the rendering component into a native Mac app like they will being doing with GNOME and (I think) KDE. That is the optimal solution IMHO.
Yes. But I've never heard of the "and (I think) KDE" part. I doubt the Mozilla guys will create a special "Kozilla" rendering component when KDE2 will have its own very promising browser.
But maybe they'll do.
The feature I really like in an IDE is online help and reference manual prettily displayed without having to fire up man in a console. And the abilty to extand it by writing scripts that can then be launched via a toolbar or menu. For these two reasons, an IDE is nicer than just bare bone editor.
Personnaly (and some trolls will hate me for that) I like KDevelop for C++ editing. There is not too much "IDE quirks", and I don't use them much neither. But the integrated help browser and the ability to jump to a function declaration by selecting its name in the class browser are really cool stuffs. (Oh, and we don't have to write by hand the complexes Makefiles needed by large configure-able project. A good point, too.)
Komodo will have integrated help. That is sufficient to make it interesting. But I hadn't seen mention of PHP. Too sad.
When will we see Underworld 3!
I hope Morrowind will recomfort us of this loss.
And there is FIPS, working under DOS. I used it when installing my first Linux (a RedHat). Lots of fears before actually trying, but absolutely no problem. Sure, there's no GUI.
Impressive, but why the hell did the navigation panel on the left side use IMAGES instead of plain text ? I know that have an ALT thingies, but, hey, these images weren't really necessary. And users have more control of font size and readability than on images.
And, just for fun, try to validate this GNOME site. I may be a poor web designer, but MY HTML is always valid!
A good C++ toolkit is not too slow. Else it's a bad C++ toolkit. This will looks like trolling (and it's not) but, for example, the TrollTech guys (when we speak of trolling, actual trolls can be nearby ;) ) claim applications converted from Motif to Qt are faster with their baby. Yes, I know it can be just pure self-promotion.
Of course, C++ tend to be slower than C, and C slower than assembly, but when you use function library, you can end up with a greatly optimised C++ function being faster than a less well-designed plain C equivalent.
And with Sawmill instead of E, Gnome will finally deserve its faster-than-KDE reputation.
I know we can't download a source tarball of MS-Windows+Explorer+MS-Office, but if it was possible, it wouldn't be weighting only a little more than 30 megs. Even if the base OS files are removed, keeping only GUI, applications and MFC.
Windows 2000 have a 20-megabyte-heavy kernel. Not Linux.
And, seriously, I doubt Gnome and KDE can be as bloated as windows. I've recently downloaded the whole KDE 2ß sources-tarball, with all packages, including the Qt library, french i18n packages, and unecessary stuff (like kdegames). Total around 30 megs.
I know we can't download a source tarball of MS-Windows+Explorer+MS-Office weighting only a little more than 30 megs. Even if the base OS files are removed, keeping only GUI, applications and MFC.
Oh, that silly "start" menu. Hey, it is in fact usable once you've customized it and move all entry to another place. I typically organized it by themes (applications, utilities, multimedia, internet, help, etc) whereas things always want to be installed by editors.
Each time another software is installed, I have to move (and, often, rename) its help to put them in the Help folder, to keep my Apps folder clean.
The Start menu is a pain (and put "stop" in "start" is a so strange idea). Gnome and KDE have a more rationnal approach of this menu, and we seldom need to have more than two levels of submenu (the first being the launcher menu).
Happily, we can in Win98 create a "Quicklaunch" bar, with icons for what we need. This has been obviously copied from Gnome and KDE.
Well, that's a long reply. And rather interesting, it's a shame I can't moderate yet. Hum.
Basically, the only thing I have to reply is that I still find Explorer/IE integration badly done. When I use KFM to browse, it keeps my local file system tree, and I can make drag'n'drop to download directly file where I want them to be, in only one window. This is not possible with E/IE, because there's an application switching: look: menu changes, toolbar changes, even ergonomy can change. So, it's not a true integration.
Oh, and please, capitalize properly acronyms: KDE, OS/2, etc. GNOME maybe an exception because "gnome" is an actual word, so the Gnome graphy don't hurt the eyes.
KFM is KDE1's file manager and browser. Konqueror is a major rewrite faster and enhanced for KDE2. AFAIK, Amaya (see w3.org for info on that. Opera is available for Linux, or will be soon. 'Never heard of iCab and WebThing. This only prove that the C¦Net article, saying "Corel Linux has Netscape, whereas MacOS 9 has both Netscape and IE" was too much restrictive and approximative.
I hadn't said Mac weren't secure, I just said the argument "because each virtuel desktop is protected by a password" is surprising. If I understand it correctly, that means that the multi user things is made by virtual desktops, whereas on Linux you can have multiple users with each multiple v-desk. That doesn't make Linux less secure, since switching user (with su or such) does requires password. On the technical security side (getting root, exploiting, etc) I don't know MacOS enough to have an opinion. I just think, though, getting root don't require to use a CLI, particularly on a system without CLI. Maybe some kind of BackOrifice tools for Mac are possible, though I never heard of one.
OK, thanks for the hint. What i was saying about hacking was a response to this:
While I'm on the soapbox, I might as well say it, MacOSX IS going to be the OS that people will have a hard time complaining about. The kernel is Mach, which is BSD compatible. The kernel is also open-source, and thus, hackable (See Darwin). Is has:
- 1) MacOS interface.
- 2) UNIX reliability.
- 3) UNIX compatability (command line programs should compile without complaint as they would on FreeBSD, X Window server is availible as an option)
- 4) A great selection of business applications.
- 5) Runs on fast, pretty hardware.
I could even go on to speculate that it should be possible to write support for PPCLinux executables into the kernel, the same way that X86 Linux executables will run on FreeBSD.As I understood that, we were speaking of complaint from anyone, not just mere "desktop user". And even a secretary can become bored of Aqua and want to theme it, no ?
For my last paragraph, I was just saying that running on fast and pretty hardware is not MacOS' exclusive privilege. And also that it can't work on old computer. So this point was pointless.
I know I don't write english as good as if it was my mothertongue, so it's maybe why peoples have trouble catching what I'm trying to say.
Yes, but that was poorly made with MS. KFM, and the now-in-beta-stage-Konqueror, can browse web and ftp as they browse local file. That means you can drag'n'drop a link to file to the tree views on the left, or to an apps. With Explorer/IE, you (transparently) change the windows. Downloads must pass by a boring dialog boxe. The interface is not common. Then, it was not the combined interface that was complained at, but the inclusion of IE as a part of the core OS. As far as I know, KDE is not an operating system. You can use Linux without.
Please don't take monopoly matters for interface matters. That's not the same thing.
Good. Just WHAT is the ALT+TAB equivalent on macs, to switch applications ? If someone can give me the answer, I'll be able to explain it to an aquaintance of mine who is suffering nervous breakdown each time he must use a mac.
Now, about the fact that MacOSX IS going to be the OS that people will have a hard time complaining about., I think they WILL be complaint about it. Want some easy ones ? Okay, the kernel is OSS, but not Cocoa, Carbon, Aqua, right ? A kernel is not everything in an OS, and it's one of the more frightening part to hack (for a beginning programmer). Will MacOS X include themability, for those who will dare not to like the Aqua interface ?
Your fifth point (Runs on fast, pretty hardware) is not really the definitive killer argument. An OSOS (open source operating system) can run on fast and pretty hardware too. And also on ugly, old or slow hardware, if you have strong money limitations. Fast and pretty hardware is truly good, but it's also expensive. And when it's at last cheap, say three years after, but some part ages more quickly than other, well, it's magically became a old and slow hardware.
One of the argument of Corel for their promotion is that Corel Linux can be a server out-of-the-box. They should have put (at least) two install categories (like RedHat, Mandrake,...), but hey!, that would have been a "difficult to install" distro: you have to make yet another choice! Yet another click!!! Awful. A corporate sysadmin just can't handle such things.