---- The KDE developers list is an output-only medium, just like the regular media: ----
I have offered you in the past to forward anything you want to that list, Miguel. It's not output-only for you.
I remember when you whined about that on IRC... and then oops, you closed gnome-hackers. Bad double standard there, Miguel.
Don't you have any IRC channels about projects you don't take part of that need crashing tonight, Miguel? Old habits die hard, don't they?
---- His bashing on other free software projects on that list are as bad as the ones I have been criticized for (hey, it was my *opinion*). ----
Except, of course, that you are the self-appointed GNOME leader, and that you gave your "opinion" on the BBC. If the parallel was more pathetic, it would be emetic.
---- Let's get ethical, Olivia! I work for AbiSource, I write code. I built KOffice (QT and the entire KOffice sources) in late 1998. Some programs worked, I didn't bother running others. It looked like a good collection of software, but I'm sure lots has happened since, right? ----
Oh. So when you said you run free software "these days" you only mean the last 6 months? Ok with me;-)
Yes. Lots has happened since.
---- When I compiled QT, Trolltech was moving to a "free" license which ultimately turned out to be "not quite free" ----
Congratulations: you have a definition of free that's even more restrictive than Richard Stallman's.
---- It has to do with the characterization of the KDE developers as generous and benevolent. ----
I didn't see that in the post you replied to. At least not like a blanket statement. KDE developers are humans, and they vary from the abrasive to the egotistic to the nice to the unselfish. You took a small sample of Matthias' email. I have seen a lot more, and I know him better.
That particular snippet triggered something in you because he talks about your product. That's understandable. Then again, what Matthias said is true.
Calling abiword or gnumeric, right now, "fully featured" is not really kosher, IMHO, and that is how they were called in several places that relate to that discussion, and that was what made Matthias call them overhyped... that they were hyped too much!
About my problems compiling AbiWord: Sorry, it's just one of those things I tried once and dropped, since the feature set described in your website as currently functional was not enough to make it actually useful for me. I will probably try it again in some later date when it's more complete.
How do I know about a feature comparison of KWord and Abiword? I compared a recent version of KWord against the features that are described in your website. Unless you are using negative hype in your product, I feel confident I was fair.
I see no way to embed documents written in AbiWord in a presentation, for example. Is there one?
If you want to do the same thing, you can find a feature list for KWord in koffice.kde.org.
---- the point of the message I replied to was that the entire KDE team is a group of cooperative and programmers. ----
If you believe that's the point, then I am now sure that you did miss the point (at least the one I saw)
---- I'm not quite sure what you're saying; "Matthias is just a developer...he is not humble about his code..." ----
Wow. You really didn't understand me? Matthias is humble about his own role in the larger scheme of things. He doesn't need to be humble about the code he writes.
And again to the point you missed: there is no benevolent (or malevolent) dictator on KDE.
As for Abiword/KWord comparisons: I have tried to build Abi 0.7 with no results on Solaris. I did, however, build KWord a month ago or so, and that version had every feature you list in your website already functional, plus some.
What was the last KWord *you* compiled? Oh, forgot you said that already (none).
And please (if you are an abi employee), if you are going to post about the products of your company, it would be a tad more ethical if you mentioned it.
If I had achieved 10% of what Matthias has, I would be 10 times more annoying than he is (hey, I may already be;-).
Besides, you are totally missing the point of what you replied to:
Matthias is just a developer. He is an extraordinary developer. Hell, he writes perhaps the prettiest code I've ever seen, but he is not the equivalent of Linus/RMS/Miguel/whatever in one important aspect: he is not "the boss".
You see, he is not humble about his code. He doesn't need to, his code is good. He is humble about just being a coder, which is (IMHO) a lot more important.
BTW: what he says of KWord and Abiword is actually true.
No, since the "source for the program" does not include Qt sources. After all, the GPL defines the source as the preferred form for modifying the program, which means the sources *without* being processed by cpp, and thus without the Qt headers included.
Re:I still don`t like QPL
on
The KDE Future
·
· Score: 1
1) 2K USD was really 1300 USD last time I checked, you are off by a 35%!
2) $1300 for commercial development is peanuts. If it saves you 50 (say 75 if you're cheap) programmer/hours in the course of the whole project, it has already paid off.
3) In the wise words of Arnt Gulbrandsen: you don't have a right to be able to afford everything.
4) If you are trying to develop closed source software, why should the open software community care? I mean, you don't want to pay TT, but you want me to pay you? Why?
5) Linux may be about everyone being able to develop apps for you. For me, it's about several other things. Why should your opinion matter more?
6) Stay with GNOME. You *do* have a right to do that. You don't however, have much of a right to whine about exercising your previously mentioned right.
According to a message by Arnt in the qt-snapshot mailing list, it seems a feature freeze for Qt 2.0 is really close (his words were like "any bug not reported now will probably be in Qt 2.0")
I would guess KDE 2.0 to be released in usable form perhaps close to end of 1999.
It all depends on wether somebody has a really really great idea that only means "a little more hacking" (or rather how many of those will happen before everyone is bored;-)
As far as I know, Red Hat employees one KDE developer, Preston Brown, but his job doesn't consist (at least solely) of working on KDE.
Red Hat has made a contract with two persons to work on speeding up the KDE port to Qt 2.0, but they are not full time Red Hat employees, but just temporary contracted programmers.
If anyone from RH is reading this, feel free to correct me.
At least that one is done:
on
The KDE Future
·
· Score: 1
Edit your startkde and start kwm as "kwm -nosession"
1) QT is C++ centric while Gnome uses more language neutral C bindings
I can't understand what "Gnome uses C bindings" means. Anyway: Miguel has said (I don't know if he did it in this interview, but he did in the BBC one) that KDE "forces you to use C++", which is blatantly false.
2) the open source QT isn't out yet
It is as out as GNOME was a couple of months ago: beta state. You can get it at www.troll.no.
Also in the BBC interview he said "KDE is not totally free yet". If you go to the kde-gnome list archives you will see him saying "KDE is free". I suppose he changed his mind.
3) Gnome uses CORBA
This is true. GNOME 1.0 doesn't use it for anything where CORBA is *needed* but it does use it (for panel applets).
------- > Current KDE development versions do require, > and use, MICO.
That's a far cry from the constant claims of "KDE has used CORBA from the beginning" and "KDE is built on CORBA".
Your statement reiterates my point. KDE is just now adding CORBA as part of the standard desktop environment. -------
KDE has developed CORBA based frameworks since before GNOME had even decided which ORB to use. I could provide you with the URL to prove it, if I cared enough (but I don't).
GNOME as a desktop environment does not use CORBA for any meaningful purposes now.
-------- So instead of using CORBA they should have invented yet another API for programmers to deal with rather than taking advantage of what's there? --------
You don't understand. GNOME did invent another (CORBA based) API instead of using what already was there. They are doing it again with Bonobo, by the way. And they did it with WM hints. It's sort of a GNOME trademark.
Exporting an API via IDL is trivial stuff. If I was pissed enough, I could provide one for kpanel in 3 hours.
Creating a useful framework to take advantage of that is another issue.
-------- Development versions of Gnome applications are using Bonobo, development versions of KDE applications are using KOM. ... Where's the difference here? --------
Development versions of KDE applications have used KOM/Openparts for about a year and a half.
Development versions of KDE applications have used KOM/Openparts since before GNOME people even started work on Bonobo.
Most KDE apps require only that you have kdelibs installed.
Some will also require that you are running kfm at the moment of using them, because that enables them to be network transparent, and things like that.
Some (very very few) will require that you are running a KDE aware window manager (for example, kpager dos this), but that still doesn't force you to use kwm, either.
Current KDE development versions do require, and use, MICO.
In any case, the only thing GNOME 1.0 used ORBit for was panel applets, which can be almost as easily built without it (as proven by WM and AS).
GNOME 1.0's usage of CORBA is somewhere between the toy and overkill levels.
Only *now* are rumours about a Real Soon Now release of the GNOME document model, which KDE has had for about a year, just to mention one of the uses of CORBA that do make sense.
If that's his opinion, my opinion is that he is about as immature as they come, which is his right, and that immature people of his age are sadly too common.
Then again, that's something I have suspected for quite a while.
And everyone, please remember this the next time someone says "KDE people" go around bashing GNOME.
Now, let's wait and see how many seconds it takes for this post to go -1
Re:In (yet another) surprising twist of discussion
on
The Desktop Wars
·
· Score: 1
I think you are confusing proprietary software (software for which the creator keeps the source private) with commercial software (software which is sold) with private use software (software that is not distributed)
Slashdot Mirror
----
The KDE developers list is an output-only medium, just like the regular media:
----
I have offered you in the past to forward anything you want to that list, Miguel. It's not output-only for you.
I remember when you whined about that on IRC... and then oops, you closed gnome-hackers. Bad double standard there, Miguel.
Don't you have any IRC channels about projects you don't take part of that need crashing tonight, Miguel? Old habits die hard, don't they?
----
His bashing on other free software projects on that list are as bad as the ones I have been criticized for (hey, it was my *opinion*).
----
Except, of course, that you are the self-appointed GNOME leader, and that you gave your "opinion" on the BBC. If the parallel was more pathetic, it would be emetic.
----
;-)
Let's get ethical, Olivia! I work for AbiSource, I write code. I built KOffice (QT and the entire KOffice sources) in late 1998. Some programs worked, I didn't bother running others. It looked like a good collection of software, but I'm sure lots has happened since, right?
----
Oh. So when you said you run free software "these days" you only mean the last 6 months? Ok with me
Yes. Lots has happened since.
----
When I compiled QT, Trolltech was moving to a "free" license which ultimately turned out to be "not quite free"
----
Congratulations: you have a definition of free that's even more restrictive than Richard Stallman's.
----
It has to do with the characterization of the KDE developers as generous and benevolent.
----
I didn't see that in the post you replied to.
At least not like a blanket statement. KDE developers are humans, and they vary from the abrasive to the egotistic to the nice to the unselfish. You took a small sample of Matthias' email. I have seen a lot more, and I know him better.
That particular snippet triggered something in you because he talks about your product. That's understandable. Then again, what Matthias said is true.
Calling abiword or gnumeric, right now, "fully featured" is not really kosher, IMHO, and that is how they were called in several places that relate to that discussion, and that was what made Matthias call them overhyped... that they were hyped too much!
About my problems compiling AbiWord: Sorry, it's just one of those things I tried once and dropped, since the feature set described in your website as currently functional was not enough to make it actually useful for me. I will probably try it again in some later date when it's more complete.
How do I know about a feature comparison of KWord and Abiword? I compared a recent version of KWord against the features that are described in your website. Unless you are using negative hype in your product, I feel confident I was fair.
I see no way to embed documents written in AbiWord in a presentation, for example. Is there one?
If you want to do the same thing, you can find a feature list for KWord in koffice.kde.org.
----
the point of the message I replied to was that the entire KDE team is a group of cooperative and programmers.
----
If you believe that's the point, then I am now sure that you did miss the point (at least the one I saw)
----
I'm not quite sure what you're saying; "Matthias is just a developer...he is not humble about his code..."
----
Wow. You really didn't understand me?
Matthias is humble about his own role in the larger scheme of things. He doesn't need to be humble about the code he writes.
And again to the point you missed: there is no benevolent (or malevolent) dictator on KDE.
As for Abiword/KWord comparisons:
I have tried to build Abi 0.7 with no results
on Solaris. I did, however, build KWord a month ago or so, and that version had every feature you list in your website already functional, plus some.
What was the last KWord *you* compiled? Oh, forgot you said that already (none).
And please (if you are an abi employee), if you are going to post about the products of your company, it would be a tad more ethical if you mentioned it.
If I had achieved 10% of what Matthias has, I would be 10 times more ;-).
annoying than he is (hey, I may already be
Besides, you are totally missing the point of what you replied to:
Matthias is just a developer. He is an extraordinary developer. Hell, he
writes perhaps the prettiest code I've ever seen, but he is not the
equivalent of Linus/RMS/Miguel/whatever in one important aspect: he is not
"the boss".
You see, he is not humble about his code. He doesn't need to, his code is
good. He is humble about just being a coder, which is (IMHO) a lot more
important.
BTW: what he says of KWord and Abiword is actually true.
No, since the "source for the program" does not include Qt sources. After all, the GPL defines the source as the preferred form for modifying the program, which means the sources *without* being processed by cpp, and thus without the Qt headers included.
1) 2K USD was really 1300 USD last time I checked, you are off by a 35%!
2) $1300 for commercial development is peanuts. If it saves you 50 (say 75 if you're cheap) programmer/hours in the course of the whole project, it has already paid off.
3) In the wise words of Arnt Gulbrandsen: you don't have a right to be able to afford everything.
4) If you are trying to develop closed source software, why should the open software community care? I mean, you don't want to pay TT, but you want me to pay you? Why?
5) Linux may be about everyone being able to develop apps for you. For me, it's about several other things. Why should your opinion matter more?
6) Stay with GNOME. You *do* have a right to do that. You don't however, have much of a right to whine about exercising your previously mentioned right.
According to a message by Arnt in the qt-snapshot mailing list, it seems a feature freeze for Qt 2.0 is really close (his words were like "any bug not reported now will probably be in Qt 2.0")
;-)
I would guess KDE 2.0 to be released in usable form perhaps close to end of 1999.
It all depends on wether somebody has a really really great idea that only means "a little more hacking" (or rather how many of those will happen before everyone is bored
, both of you are partly right and partly wrong.
As far as I know, Red Hat employees one KDE developer, Preston Brown, but his job doesn't consist (at least solely) of working on KDE.
Red Hat has made a contract with two persons to work on speeding up the KDE port to Qt 2.0, but they are not full time Red Hat employees, but just temporary contracted programmers.
If anyone from RH is reading this, feel free to correct me.
Edit your startkde and start kwm as "kwm -nosession"
HTH
1) QT is C++ centric while Gnome uses more language neutral C bindings
I can't understand what "Gnome uses C bindings" means. Anyway: Miguel has said (I don't know if he did it in this interview, but he did in the BBC one) that KDE "forces you to use C++", which is blatantly false.
2) the open source QT isn't out yet
It is as out as GNOME was a couple of months ago: beta state. You can get it at www.troll.no.
Also in the BBC interview he said "KDE is not totally free yet". If you go to the kde-gnome list archives you will see him saying "KDE is free".
I suppose he changed his mind.
3) Gnome uses CORBA
This is true. GNOME 1.0 doesn't use it for anything where CORBA is *needed* but it does use it (for panel applets).
... why do you believe that sensessly bashing another free software project is "ok"?
-------
> Current KDE development versions do require,
> and use, MICO.
That's a far cry from the constant claims of "KDE has used CORBA from the beginning" and "KDE is built on CORBA".
Your statement reiterates my point. KDE is just now adding CORBA as part of the standard desktop
environment.
-------
KDE has developed CORBA based frameworks since before GNOME had even decided which ORB to use. I could provide you with the URL to prove it, if I cared enough (but I don't).
GNOME as a desktop environment does not use CORBA for any meaningful purposes now.
--------
So instead of using CORBA they should have invented yet another API for programmers to deal with rather than taking advantage of what's there?
--------
You don't understand. GNOME did invent another (CORBA based) API instead of using what already was there. They are doing it again with Bonobo, by the way. And they did it with WM hints. It's sort of a GNOME trademark.
Exporting an API via IDL is trivial stuff.
If I was pissed enough, I could provide one for kpanel in 3 hours.
Creating a useful framework to take advantage of that is another issue.
--------
Development versions of Gnome applications are using Bonobo, development versions of KDE
applications are using KOM.
... Where's the difference here?
--------
Development versions of KDE applications have used KOM/Openparts for about a year and a half.
Development versions of KDE applications have used KOM/Openparts since before GNOME people even started work on Bonobo.
That's the difference.
Most KDE apps require only that you have kdelibs installed.
Some will also require that you are running kfm at the moment of using them, because that enables them to be network transparent, and things like that.
Some (very very few) will require that you are running a KDE aware window manager (for example, kpager dos this), but that still doesn't force you to use kwm, either.
Current KDE development versions do require, and use, MICO.
In any case, the only thing GNOME 1.0 used ORBit for was panel applets, which can be almost as easily built without it (as proven by WM and AS).
GNOME 1.0's usage of CORBA is somewhere between the toy and overkill levels.
Only *now* are rumours about a Real Soon Now release of the GNOME document model, which KDE has had for about a year, just to mention one of the uses of CORBA that do make sense.
There is a very small subset of the KDE functionality that requires a KDE aware window manager.
There are several KDE aware window managers, including window maker.
The situation is not very different from GNOME's. (Hell, I can't find *any* difference)
I wrote them (in a week, if I may brag a bit).
They are for Qt 1.33, but they should work on Qt 1.44, only be incomplete.
It's not the best binding possible (not even close), but I did it to win an argument.
http://ultra7.unl.edu.ar look for qtc
If that's his opinion, my opinion is that he is about as immature as they come, which is his right, and that immature people of his age are sadly too common.
Then again, that's something I have suspected for quite a while.
And everyone, please remember this the next time someone says "KDE people" go around bashing GNOME.
The FSF did not take them to court.
The FSF has never *ever* taken anyone to court over the GPL.
The GPL has never been tested in a court of law, in any place of the world.
The exact interpretation of the language in the GPL is open to argument until a pertinent court decides on it.
Well, if there was a way to publish a "letter to the editor" in /., I would have used that.
Of course, there is not.
Yeah, I am surprised!
/. on this apparently working and useful moderation system :-)
Congratulations to
Nah, I've given up on this.
I'm just venting a bit.
Did you notice that article says GNOME includes tools for "Java and ActiveX development"????
Gee, wonder on what RPM those things are.
These are from the last 4 days or so.
e 1b.htm
p ?ArticleID=4578
2 911,00.html
http://www.forbes.com/tool/html/99/may/0503/sid
http://www.varbusiness.com/news/breakingnews.as
http://www.zdnet.com/sr/stories/news/0,4538,225
Now, let's wait and see how many seconds it takes for this post to go -1
I think you are confusing proprietary software (software for which the creator keeps the source private) with commercial software (software which is sold) with private use software (software that is not distributed)
http://ultra7.unl.edu.ar/kfte
...that dragons are green. It's a photo realistic depiction, not some kind of cartoon!