One initial comment: I won't answer to generic anti-GUI rants. I will answer to any criticism as soon as it is applied to KDE.
"What about the Gnome project's documentation? Does KDEhelp find that?"
Sure.
"What about the Imlib functions? Does it find documentation for them, too? "
I have no idea. If they are man, info, or html, yes.
"The principal problem that I see with anything like "KDEhelp" is that it's domain-specific. Imagine if for each new software suite, which we'll call FOO, that you had to use FOOhelp to access. "
You see, that's the problem. You got it completely backwards.
In the beginngin, there was a mess called "the unix and apps that run in it docs". They came in at least three formats.
Then someone who had his balls in the right place, created a tool that can access all those three formats, making the differences between them irrelevant.
That person was part of a group. That group chose one of those formats, the one they liked better, for their own docs. Specially considering that anyone that used their toosl could use their tool to read the docs, and that such tool has the distinct advantage given above, they did the right thing.
Now, if you or anyone else wants to use a similar tool in another environment: your task is easier. The hard part is already done.
Don't hold against us creating a tool that's better than the ones you have.
Think. Carefully. The GPL covers distribution of software. Corel is saying they are not distributing it. For that to be a breach of the GPL, you must find me a place in the GPL where it says "you should distribute this software to anyone that asks". You won't find it.
You would also "win" if you find somewhere where it says something to the effect of "you should not discriminate on who you distribute this software to, on basis of age race or gender". But that's not there either.
To you. You are not the one deciding. Your opinion doesn't matter at all.
"As an admin and someone faithful to the precepts of the Free Software movement, I feel I can connect with this, but you are having difficulty doing that."
I have no trouble seing what pissed off Bruce. I also have no trouble seing it is totally legal.
"Ever heard of export regulations? Try boning up on your world affairs."
Oh, grow up.
"Requiring someone to be a minor, however, is an abomination."
Corel is not requiring someone to be a minor.
And: PRECISELY WHAT PART OF THE GPL DOES NOT GIVING YOU A PROGRAM BREAK?????
I'll say it again: I have a copy of Corel Linux. I will not give it to YOU. Have I broken the GPL?
If yes: HOW? If no: in what way is it different from Corel's position?
Tom: Unless you start making specific criticisms, all your writing is useless.
For example: "you should stop discrimating against people with non-Windows learning styles and and non-Western cultural backgrounds."
Ok. Where is KDE doing that?
Another: "here's probably more, like not discrimating against left-handed people, but those are the big ones that came to mind."
Where does KDE discriminate against left-handed people?
Another: "stop discriminating against people who don't mind dealing with multiple layers of abstraction"
Where does KDE do that?
"stop discriminating against people who can actually touch type"
Yet again: where does KDE do that?
"The keyboard-mouse fight is self-defeating"
Where in KDE do you find something that is only accessible through the mouse, and what keyboard access do you propose?
"Going back to the pre-literate days of pointing and grunting rather than explaining what you're trying to do is hardly progress."
Where is KDE doing that?
"Allow people to learn, damn it! "
Where does KDE prevent people from learning????
Can I suggest that perl stop discriminating against those who like to use the mouse, against those with RSI (perl makes you type!), against those with good taste in syntax, against those who dislike interpreted languages, against those who have short attention spans, against those who prefer non-procedural languages, against those who prefere there be one obvious way to do things, against people who has to maintain other's code, and against those who prefer ideograms?
Initial comment: no, it is not true that everything that refers to left or right is misdesigned. If the KDE docs tell you that when you first use it the trashcan is at the left, they are just right. It sure beats having to guess where it is.
I click on the left button with my big finger, and the right one with my pinky, at least 20% of the time (changing mouse grip is good to prevent RSI), so your proposal is just as flawed as "left" and "right".
Now, the only mentions of "left mouse button" I can find are all in the docs. So, if it's just a bug in the docs, let's change the docs.
Come up with a proper replacement ("index" doesn't work) and suggest it to the docs group.
That's all. Amazingly shallow problem.
Besides, the man that suggested that Alt-TAB should not be the window-cycle shortcut BECAUSE it would be natural for 90% of the possible users, and should thus be changed to something that hurt that 90% is hardly the one to complaint about something that affects a minority;-)
In particular, how can they be sublicensing when they are giving it to you under the GPL?
Please notice: they are not saying you can't use the software if you are a minor. They are not saying you can't copy the software if you are a minor. They are not saying tou can't modify the software if you are a minor.
All they are saying is that if you are a minor, THEY will not give the software to you. I could give it tou you. I WILL NOT give it to you. Am I breaking the GPL too? Am I "sublicensing"?
They are not sublicensing. If they were sublicensing, you would be getting the software under a license that is NOT THE GPL.
Here, you are getting it under the GPL, or you are not getting it at all.
Now, the only place where they could be breaking a license is if the GPL would force them to give it to you, "you" being one specific minor, and they refused.
Now. If you can show me a case for it, I'd happily agree they are violating the GPL.
Please: I think the limit sucks. I think it is legal, too.
Anyone can decide who downloads, for reasons that are relevant only to the owner of the FTP site.
Some don't want to bog their nets, so they set user limits.
Some don't want anonymity, so they ask for real emails.
Some don't want foreigners using their site, so they enforce country.
Some don't want minors, for reasons that are not really known to us, so they ask if you are 18.
Hell, someone could decide "I'll let you download if you pay me $5". WALNUT CREEK USED TO DO THAT. They had special named accounts for paying customers.
Tom, you simply jump from 'they are doing things that fit windows users' to 'they are not doing things that fit unix users'.
Now, if you would be kind enough to explain me the logical connection between those two premises, I'd be happy to engage in an argument.
About the manual orientation thing: I'm sure you can sed the docs to replace all the references from "left button" to "right button" and viceversa. I'll be happy to distribute "kde docs for leftys" for you.
Finally: you apparently missed the part about this being the opinion of two people. I am one other people. I care. At least I STILL care. If you rant some more, I may stop caring, and the reason will be that it's hard to care about ranters.
Ranters should expect people to expect them to care about themselves.
If TT does one of a number of things, like not making the free version of Qt available, or stopping development, then by simple majority (which can be achieved by the KDE developers members of the foundation) Qt goes BSD.
That is the main purpose of the foundation.
Aditionally, if the day came when TT felt extremely generous for some reason, or if there are news of an asteroid aimed at Norway, they may ask for a immediate release under the BSD license, which can be done anytime with an unanymous vote.
Of course they didn't put their property (Qt) in the position where two people outside TT can rerelease it under BSD at will. That would have been stupid, and we have no reason to expect TT to be stupid.
The foundation goal is that the license situation will never be worse than the day the foundation was created. So far, it's doing well.
It may surprise you, but very few software products have this safety net, including many you doubtlessly consider free, and proper to use.
Slashdot Mirror
I said:
"The foundation doesn't give a damn about commercial software developers. That's TT's job. "
You said:
"So KDE is a QT marketing machine? "
Call me stupid, but I have no idea how you get from what I said to what you said. Would you be kind enough to explain a bit?
Hey, at least your email was properly spaced. Keep up the good work!
...the irony of someone making unreadable posts about ease of use?
One initial comment: I won't answer to generic anti-GUI rants. I will answer to any criticism as soon as it is applied to KDE.
"What about the Gnome project's documentation? Does KDEhelp find that?"
Sure.
"What about the Imlib functions? Does it find documentation for them, too? "
I have no idea. If they are man, info, or html, yes.
"The principal problem that I see with anything like "KDEhelp" is that it's domain-specific. Imagine if for each new software suite, which we'll call FOO, that you had to use FOOhelp to access. "
You see, that's the problem. You got it completely backwards.
In the beginngin, there was a mess called "the unix and apps that run in it docs". They came in at least three formats.
Then someone who had his balls in the right place, created a tool that can access all those three formats, making the differences between them irrelevant.
That person was part of a group. That group chose one of those formats, the one they liked better, for their own docs. Specially considering that anyone that used their toosl could use their tool to read the docs, and that such tool has the distinct advantage given above, they did the right thing.
Now, if you or anyone else wants to use a similar tool in another environment: your task is easier. The hard part is already done.
Don't hold against us creating a tool that's better than the ones you have.
"If the porting work is already done, why should it have to be done again?"
Because the version that exists is not yours, and you don't like the license.
"Isn't one of the major benifits of open source not having to duplicate work?"
Do it once, and it won't have to be duplicated.
It is not done.
"Will Troll roll that into their tree, or will I have to maintain it as a seperate patch? "
Ask them. Or use CVS. Or perforce. Or whatever.
Or try some other mechanism that fits the license and ask them if it's ok.
For example, keeping the original sources and adding renamed files for the modified ones, and patch the makefile accordingly.
That may be good enough.
What part of the GPL talks about discrimination?
grep -i discri COPYING
returns nothing.
Think. Carefully. The GPL covers distribution of software. Corel is saying they are not distributing it. For that to be a breach of the GPL, you must find me a place in the GPL where it says "you should distribute this software to anyone that asks". You won't find it.
You would also "win" if you find somewhere where it says something to the effect of "you should not discriminate on who you distribute this software to, on basis of age race or gender". But that's not there either.
What patent is involved here?
"These reasons are acceptable -- age isn't."
To you. You are not the one deciding. Your opinion doesn't matter at all.
"As an admin and someone faithful to the precepts of the Free Software movement, I feel I can connect with this, but you are having difficulty doing that."
I have no trouble seing what pissed off Bruce. I also have no trouble seing it is totally legal.
"Ever heard of export regulations? Try boning up on your world affairs."
Oh, grow up.
"Requiring someone to be a minor, however, is an abomination."
Corel is not requiring someone to be a minor.
And: PRECISELY WHAT PART OF THE GPL DOES NOT GIVING YOU A PROGRAM BREAK?????
I'll say it again: I have a copy of Corel Linux. I will not give it to YOU. Have I broken the GPL?
If yes: HOW?
If no: in what way is it different from Corel's position?
That help system you want exists. It's called KDEHelp.
Not only does it integrate man pages and KDE docs, but also info pages (for which I really hope you don't find us poor KDE people accountable).
Now, if you want such a system to be available for CLI guys, port it. It's semi-trivial.
BTW: man pages are not such system, even if we keep KDE and info pages out of the question.
Have you ever tried installing qmail's man pages on unixware? You are bound for disappointment.
If your language can do XMLRPC, it can script KDE applications.
Tom: Unless you start making specific criticisms, all your writing is useless.
For example: "you should stop discrimating against people with non-Windows learning styles and and non-Western cultural backgrounds."
Ok. Where is KDE doing that?
Another: "here's probably more, like not discrimating against left-handed people, but those are the big ones that came to mind."
Where does KDE discriminate against left-handed people?
Another: "stop discriminating against people who don't mind dealing with multiple layers of abstraction"
Where does KDE do that?
"stop discriminating against people who can actually touch type"
Yet again: where does KDE do that?
"The keyboard-mouse fight is self-defeating"
Where in KDE do you find something that is only accessible through the mouse, and what keyboard access do you propose?
"Going back to the pre-literate days of pointing and grunting rather than explaining what you're trying to do is hardly progress."
Where is KDE doing that?
"Allow people to learn, damn it! "
Where does KDE prevent people from learning????
Can I suggest that perl stop discriminating against those who like to use the mouse, against those with RSI (perl makes you type!), against those with good taste in syntax, against those who dislike interpreted languages, against those who have short attention spans, against those who prefer non-procedural languages, against those who prefere there be one obvious way to do things, against people who has to maintain other's code, and against those who prefer ideograms?
See?
I'd bet on the second. Anyway, they COULD use the preview button :-)
Initial comment: no, it is not true that everything that refers to left or right is misdesigned. If the KDE docs tell you that when you first use it the trashcan is at the left, they are just right. It sure beats having to guess where it is.
;-)
I click on the left button with my big finger, and the right one with my pinky, at least 20% of the time (changing mouse grip is good to prevent RSI),
so your proposal is just as flawed as "left" and "right".
Now, the only mentions of "left mouse button" I can find are all in the docs. So, if it's just a bug in the docs, let's change the docs.
Come up with a proper replacement ("index" doesn't work) and suggest it to the docs group.
That's all. Amazingly shallow problem.
Besides, the man that suggested that Alt-TAB should not be the window-cycle shortcut BECAUSE it would be natural for 90% of the possible users, and should thus be changed to something that hurt that 90% is hardly the one to complaint about something that affects a minority
...what sublicensing means.
In particular, how can they be sublicensing when they are giving it to you under the GPL?
Please notice: they are not saying you can't use the software if you are a minor. They are not saying you can't copy the software if you are a minor. They are not saying tou can't modify the software if you are a minor.
All they are saying is that if you are a minor, THEY will not give the software to you. I could give it tou you. I WILL NOT give it to you. Am I breaking the GPL too? Am I "sublicensing"?
Of course not!
Sure. Now that you said it breaks the GPL, I'll have to change my mind.
Listen: show me why this is a breach of the GPL, and I'll be happy to sue, since Corel is distributing code I OWN, and is licensed under the GPL.
Now, I DO NOT see where the breach is. So I right now believe threatening to sue is stupid.
They are not sublicensing.
If they were sublicensing, you would be getting the software under a license that is NOT THE GPL.
Here, you are getting it under the GPL, or you are not getting it at all.
Now, the only place where they could be breaking a license is if the GPL would force them to give it to you, "you" being one specific minor, and they refused.
Now. If you can show me a case for it, I'd happily agree they are violating the GPL.
Please: I think the limit sucks. I think it is legal, too.
You missed the point completely.
Anyone can decide who downloads, for reasons that are relevant only to the owner of the FTP site.
Some don't want to bog their nets, so they set user limits.
Some don't want anonymity, so they ask for real emails.
Some don't want foreigners using their site, so they enforce country.
Some don't want minors, for reasons that are not really known to us, so they ask if you are 18.
Hell, someone could decide "I'll let you download
if you pay me $5". WALNUT CREEK USED TO DO THAT.
They had special named accounts for paying customers.
Get it now?
Some FTP sites won;t let you download if you are the 301st to try, did that bother you?
Some FTP sites won't let you download unless you give them your real email address, did that bother you?
Some FTP sites won't let you download unless you are in a certain country, did that bother you?
Some FTP sites now won;t let you download unless you are 18. This does bother you.
Bruce: if you want to force non-discrimination in distribution: ie: distribute no question asked:
PUT IT IN THE LICENSE TO YOUR SOFTWARE.
Read the Fucking license. Now tell me where it says you can't port it to win32.
"what about "securing the availability" of the Qt
toolkit for developing commercial software? "
That is not the goal of the foundation. The foundation doesn't give a damn about commercial software developers. That's TT's job.
Could you repost this with paragraphs shorter than 150 lines, so it can actually be read without getting a headache?
The point is that these are the answers of two people out of hundreds.
:-)
If you ask through the official representatives, you will get the condensed opinion of about 30 people.
Of course for individual pieces of software, just ask the author. If you ask about KRN, ask me.
It gets tricky when you ask people about software they are NOT writing, though. If Richard answers about KRN, I'd like him to ask me first
Tom, you simply jump from 'they are doing things that fit windows users' to 'they are not doing things that fit unix users'.
Now, if you would be kind enough to explain me the logical connection between those two premises, I'd be happy to engage in an argument.
About the manual orientation thing: I'm sure you can sed the docs to replace all the references from "left button" to "right button" and viceversa. I'll be happy to distribute "kde docs for leftys" for you.
Finally: you apparently missed the part about this being the opinion of two people. I am one other people. I care. At least I STILL care. If you rant some more, I may stop caring, and the reason will be that it's hard to care about ranters.
Ranters should expect people to expect them to care about themselves.
The Foundation is a simple thing.
If TT does one of a number of things, like not making the free version of Qt available, or stopping development, then by simple majority (which can be achieved by the KDE developers members of the foundation) Qt goes BSD.
That is the main purpose of the foundation.
Aditionally, if the day came when TT felt extremely generous for some reason, or if there are news of an asteroid aimed at Norway, they may ask for a immediate release under the BSD license, which can be done anytime with an unanymous vote.
Of course they didn't put their property (Qt) in the position where two people outside TT can rerelease it under BSD at will. That would have been stupid, and we have no reason to expect TT to be stupid.
The foundation goal is that the license situation will never be worse than the day the foundation was created. So far, it's doing well.
It may surprise you, but very few software products have this safety net, including many you doubtlessly consider free, and proper to use.