I will just quote two parts of your post and show why you are incoherent:
"essential core components mean those parts without which you cannot reasonably expect any application to run on the operating system. "
"It means the compiler"
Sorry, but it's perfectly possible to run an operating system without it even having a compiler. I can run Linux without gcc just fine and dandy. I can't run Linux without installing it, though.
An installer is a very fundamental part of the OS. You can not use the OS without one!
Then, I never said Caldera was the linux operating system. Caldera's OpenLinux is "the caldera OpenLinux Operating System", and I would love to see a reason why it isn't (specially if Debian is "the Debian GNU/Linux system", as the FSF says)
Also, are you a lawyer? Claiming to know what the result of a court decision would be and not making a disclaimer about it is a crime in the US (really)
Finally: tightening the license means dropping the GPL. If people is going to drop the GPL, why argue about wether the QPL is GPL compatible?
Running a system without a compiler is trivial. How do you think compilers get ported? Therefore, what you say is not the litmus test Qt should pass, either.
And it has been done in the netwinder, and I wouldn't be surprised if San did it:-)
You have the nettrom+rescue image, which boots a full linux system from the EEPROM. Ok, full is a bit too much, but it is enough to do a full reinstall of the OS over a network without having to set NFS root.
I must confess I have never used it, because I had a tftp/kernel NFS/root setup already configured, but anyway, it still sounds really cool.
The netwinder can boot almost out of a used chewing gum:-)
Try to explain what a bridge or a switching hub does using the OSI layers, and then without. See what's clearer, and what conveys more information.
See?
I must confess I have never calculated dissipation requirements for a computer room and I do call myself a sysadmin, though (well, the architects that designed the buildings did ask me about power usage, and they did calculate based on that).
For one thing, Qt 2.0's theme support (styles, really) is a heck of a lot more powerful, simple, rational, and interesting than Gtk's.
Just to say one thing, on Gtk you can't change the widget's topology, which you could even do with Qt 1.3! (ok, as far as I know, only I bothered doing it http://ultra7.unl.edu.ar/themes/desktop01.gif;-)
So, since Qt will, in 3 months (I'd say now, but let's restrict to releases, and yes, I am making up the 3 months figure) surpass gtk in style support, considering the gtk headstart, why wouldn't Qt be more likely to reach MUI?
And yes, in Qt 2.0, you can change the look of a widget, down to the last pixel, too.
This should have gone in the parent message, but anyway;-)
Rowan: your piece about modularity feels like it's missing a dozen paragraphs somewhere.
Let me explain you why I feel that:
In one paragraph you say "Some of the KDE Developers are working on a really good and promessing Office package."
And you even go on to say that "This Office package consists of a level of modularity which I quitte enjoy to read about."
Then you switch suddenly to saying KOffice is somehow flawed because it is not "the system which will finally save us from uninspired influences."
First, I fail to see how a simple office package (or any software, really), is supposed to do that, but then you switch again to "KOffice sucks"!
You change, in two paragraphs from promising and something you like to read about to "it sucks", and the only reason you give is some cryptic message about uninspired influences.
As I said before, if you want to reach the reader, you need to make sense for the reader. I simply can not digest what happened between those paragraphs, and seing such a 180 degree turn in opinion makes me queasy about the validity of your point.
Imagine if I started an essay by saying "George Washington was a fine guy, I like to read about the good acts he made" and suddenly you said "but he was a bloody tyrant!".
The least the unsuspecting reader would expect is an explanation about *why* you change your point of view so quickly. And if your explanation was "because of all the uninspired influences he had", well, let's say your history concepts would be considered shaky.
You say you have studied and learned the GNU system a lot. If after taking all that trouble, you give us an essay, why not put in the essay some of the insight I am sure you gained from the study?
How about some reasoned foundation for your ideas and opinions?
How about some coherence between what you say in one paragraph and the next, or was it just a rethoric trick?
If you want your essay to be considered, you may also like to get down the high horse. "it sucks" is not an argument any developer is going to consider.
Finally: please consider adding a notice explaining us your qualifications. I would consider modularity complaints from a member of the OMG more than from a member of the NRA , for one thing;-)
"I am not getting into the KDE customizability argument", followed by:
"it sucks", "it looks worse than a windows theme", "it will get better using Qt 2.0".
Gee, wonder what would happen if you *got* into the argument.
Ok, let me explain you a few things, please take it kindly.
1) The goal of KDE is not to provide themes to you. There, I said it. Themes are 99% of the time pointless, distracting uglyness, which only detract from your productivity.
2) Configurability != themes. Configurability is providing the means to adjust the behaviour of your environment to different ways of working.
KDE's mac-like menu bar is more configurability than all the gtk pixmap themes. Why? Because it's useful. Because it provides you a different feel, not just a different look.
It's an option, you change it, you adjust KDE to your preferred way of using it. It's configurability.
3) Why leave windows and go to KDE? Put like that it makes no sense, of course. Then again, that should come as no surp[rise, since it actually makes no sense.
People don't like windows for KDE (or GNOME). They leave windows for Linux, or FreeBSD or whatever, +X +KDE.
So, what do you get by making that switch: you get multiuserness, you get remotability, you get stability, you get some extra software, you get some software cheaper (say, WP), and you get a GUI that is not terrible, from the point of view of a person who is used to windows.
You see, if you switched instead to Linux+X+twm, several of the advantages you would get are not accessible to you, or are accessible through a higher learning curve, which often means the switching user won't care.
It's a golden rule of UI: if the user doesn't know it's there, or if the user can't *use* it, it could as well not exist.
Hope this helps you, it looks like you have something you want to say, but I can't see it behind the things I see as wrong or disagree too deeply with. If you want to reach a reader, you need to make sense to him.
Then again, I may not be your intended reader (I'd say it's likely I am not;-) and my opinion holds no weight, but who am I to say that?
The foundation has the right to release the software under the BSD license in some specific cases, none of which has happened now.
I suppose me and Matthias could vote for it anyway, lying about our motives, but it would be:
1) Stupid. 2) Pointless. (We would just go to jail) 3) Not honourable. 4) Against the statutes of the foundation we signed. 5) Evil. 6) A treacherous action against people we respect (Troll Tech) 7) Stupid again. 8) Did I mention stupid?
PS: yes, I am one of the KDE voters, and if I did that, I couldn't look at myself in the mirror in the morning. And I am not that stupid.
By making a compromise over what you say is the least important thing, we show exceedingly poor judgement?
What's letf to a poor sap that makes a compromise on something that matters? A firing squad at dawn?
You can argue one thing or the other:
Or by making a compromise over something important, we show poor judgement, or by making a compromise over something that doesn't matter we show pragmatism and foresight.
Slashdot Mirror
It's the first time I see someone claim crtbegin.o is part of the compiler.
If it is, since egcs is licensed under the GPL, all linux binaries are GPL.
I agree you can't run linux without some copies of crtbegin.o, but crtbegin.o is not the compiler.
I will just quote two parts of your post and show why you are incoherent:
"essential core components mean those parts without which you cannot reasonably expect any application to run on the operating system. "
"It means the compiler"
Sorry, but it's perfectly possible to run an operating system without it even having a compiler. I can run Linux without gcc just fine and dandy. I can't run Linux without installing it, though.
An installer is a very fundamental part of the OS.
You can not use the OS without one!
Then, I never said Caldera was the linux operating system. Caldera's OpenLinux is "the caldera OpenLinux Operating System", and I would love to see a reason why it isn't (specially if Debian is "the Debian GNU/Linux system", as the FSF says)
Also, are you a lawyer? Claiming to know what the result of a court decision would be and not making a disclaimer about it is a crime in the US (really)
Finally: tightening the license means dropping the GPL. If people is going to drop the GPL, why argue about wether the QPL is GPL compatible?
It is essential in OpenLinux 2.2, since you can't install the system without it. How much more essential can you get?
Running a system without a compiler is trivial.
How do you think compilers get ported?
Therefore, what you say is not the litmus test Qt should pass, either.
And it has been done in the netwinder, and I wouldn't be surprised if San did it :-)
:-)
You have the nettrom+rescue image, which boots a full linux system from the EEPROM. Ok, full is a bit too much, but it is enough to do a full reinstall of the OS over a network without having to set NFS root.
I must confess I have never used it, because I had a tftp/kernel NFS/root setup already configured, but anyway, it still sounds really cool.
The netwinder can boot almost out of a used chewing gum
There are KDE rpms for about every version of KDE and Red Hat, why didn't you try that, if you say you aways try that?
:-)
I can't understand your line of thought
...for one thing, as a communication tool.
Try to explain what a bridge or a switching hub does using the OSI layers, and then without. See what's clearer, and what conveys more information.
See?
I must confess I have never calculated dissipation requirements for a computer room and I do call myself a sysadmin, though (well, the architects that designed the buildings did ask me about power usage, and they did calculate based on that).
For one thing, Qt 2.0's theme support (styles, really) is a heck of a lot more powerful, simple, rational, and interesting than Gtk's.
;-)
Just to say one thing, on Gtk you can't change the widget's topology, which you could even do with Qt 1.3! (ok, as far as I know, only I bothered doing it http://ultra7.unl.edu.ar/themes/desktop01.gif
So, since Qt will, in 3 months (I'd say now, but let's restrict to releases, and yes, I am making up the 3 months figure) surpass gtk in style support, considering the gtk headstart, why wouldn't Qt be more likely to reach MUI?
And yes, in Qt 2.0, you can change the look of a widget, down to the last pixel, too.
This should have gone in the parent message, but anyway ;-)
;-)
Rowan: your piece about modularity feels like it's missing a dozen paragraphs somewhere.
Let me explain you why I feel that:
In one paragraph you say "Some of the KDE Developers are working on a really good and promessing Office package."
And you even go on to say that "This Office package consists of a level of modularity which I quitte enjoy to read about."
Then you switch suddenly to saying KOffice is somehow flawed because it is not "the system which will finally save us from uninspired influences."
First, I fail to see how a simple office package (or any software, really), is supposed to do that, but then you switch again to "KOffice sucks"!
You change, in two paragraphs from promising and something you like to read about to "it sucks", and the only reason you give is some cryptic message about uninspired influences.
As I said before, if you want to reach the reader, you need to make sense for the reader. I simply can not digest what happened between those paragraphs, and seing such a 180 degree turn in opinion makes me queasy about the validity of your point.
Imagine if I started an essay by saying "George Washington was a fine guy, I like to read about the good acts he made" and suddenly you said "but he was a bloody tyrant!".
The least the unsuspecting reader would expect is an explanation about *why* you change your point of view so quickly. And if your explanation was "because of all the uninspired influences he had", well, let's say your history concepts would be considered shaky.
You say you have studied and learned the GNU system a lot. If after taking all that trouble, you give us an essay, why not put in the essay some of the insight I am sure you gained from the study?
How about some reasoned foundation for your ideas and opinions?
How about some coherence between what you say in one paragraph and the next, or was it just a rethoric trick?
If you want your essay to be considered, you may also like to get down the high horse. "it sucks" is not an argument any developer is going to consider.
Finally: please consider adding a notice explaining us your qualifications. I would consider modularity complaints from a member of the OMG more than from a member of the NRA , for one thing
"I am not getting into the KDE customizability argument", followed by:
;-) and my opinion holds no weight, but who am I to say that?
"it sucks", "it looks worse than a windows theme", "it will get better using Qt 2.0".
Gee, wonder what would happen if you *got* into the argument.
Ok, let me explain you a few things, please take it kindly.
1) The goal of KDE is not to provide themes to you. There, I said it. Themes are 99% of the time pointless, distracting uglyness, which only detract from your productivity.
2) Configurability != themes.
Configurability is providing the means to adjust the behaviour of your environment to different ways of working.
KDE's mac-like menu bar is more configurability than all the gtk pixmap themes. Why? Because it's useful. Because it provides you a different feel, not just a different look.
It's an option, you change it, you adjust KDE to your preferred way of using it. It's configurability.
3) Why leave windows and go to KDE?
Put like that it makes no sense, of course.
Then again, that should come as no surp[rise, since it actually makes no sense.
People don't like windows for KDE (or GNOME). They leave windows for Linux, or FreeBSD or whatever, +X +KDE.
So, what do you get by making that switch: you get multiuserness, you get remotability, you get stability, you get some extra software, you get some software cheaper (say, WP), and you get a GUI that is not terrible, from the point of view of a person who is used to windows.
You see, if you switched instead to Linux+X+twm, several of the advantages you would get are not accessible to you, or are accessible through a higher learning curve, which often means the switching user won't care.
It's a golden rule of UI: if the user doesn't know it's there, or if the user can't *use* it, it could as well not exist.
Hope this helps you, it looks like you have something you want to say, but I can't see it behind the things I see as wrong or disagree too deeply with. If you want to reach a reader, you need to make sense to him.
Then again, I may not be your intended reader (I'd say it's likely I am not
Disclaimer: I am a KDE developer.
8 people to write just the UI?
If you separate the backend into a library, you would only need to pay
perhaps one license, $1300 or so.
The foundation has the right to release the software under the BSD license
in some specific cases, none of which has happened now.
I suppose me and Matthias could vote for it anyway, lying about our motives,
but it would be:
1) Stupid.
2) Pointless. (We would just go to jail)
3) Not honourable.
4) Against the statutes of the foundation we signed.
5) Evil.
6) A treacherous action against people we respect (Troll Tech)
7) Stupid again.
8) Did I mention stupid?
PS: yes, I am one of the KDE voters, and if I did that, I couldn't look
at myself in the mirror in the morning. And I am not that stupid.
...I don't. I don't plan on having one.
I can't afford one, even.
Why should those who don't own macs be deprived of a friendly GUI?
If you believe the MAC UI is good, why is it bad to use it as inspiration?
Finally: "we can do better?" what we is that?
What have you done to be part of the "we"?
(I mean besides flaming me in the past)
It's scary! ;-)
s ort=alpha
http://kde.themes.org/gallery.shtml?show=51-75&
By making a compromise over what you say is the least important thing, we show exceedingly poor judgement?
What's letf to a poor sap that makes a compromise on something that matters? A firing squad at dawn?
You can argue one thing or the other:
Or by making a compromise over something important, we show poor judgement, or by making a compromise over something that doesn't matter we show pragmatism and foresight.
The other combinations make no sense.
I would be supremely annoyed if some of the GPLd programs I wrote were called GNU software.
For some I wouldn't care, but for most, it's not more GNU software than it is extraterrestrial software (ie: not much).
If I downloaded KDE over the phone, counting phone fee+provider fee it would cost me about $35.
:-)
Thanks Shiva I don't!
1) Get latest WM
2) Build it with KDE support
3) Use KPager.
You need run no other piece of KDE, no panel, no kfm, no nothing, and you get a extremely functional and pretty pager.
Enjoy!
... you appreciate specially the paintings with the pretty frames.
:-P
If you didn't notice, E only works outside of the windows, in the frames.
Beauty of an application must be something deeper
with a SiS 6326 8MB AGP video board and a "3dsoundpro" sound card, cheap, and works.
The video was a bitch to setup, but it *is* working now...
As far as I know, it's mostly written by Jacques Gelinas.
...why are you commenting on it???
:-)
Get those $1 CDs from cheapbytes and lo and behold! YaST is in all of them.
Gee, wonder how that happened.
Please go and check the YaST license.
So, now we know the *real* reason for the failure of NeXTStep!!!!
BTW: my guess is that SuSE used to be S.u.S.E, and in german the nouns *must* be capitalized.