It's a good thing for the unwashed newbies to have only one WM available for installation. And although it's nice to say that knowledgable users can download other stuff off the net, downloading and installing Gnome, as an example, is hardly trivial.
Caldera (and the forthcoming Corel) should include alternate Window Managers and other non-default applications on a separate CD. That way a newbie can do an initial install, get comfortable with Linux, then start exploring "Disk 2".
I agree absolutely. Let everyone contribute as much as they want. There are thousands of people who contribute one dollar for everyone that contributes one thousand dollars. And there are thousands of them for every one that could contribute one million.
But I would add one other requirement: contributions from eligible voters only. Not only would this eliminate the foreign funding scandals that are arisen in the US, but it would also eliminate corporate funding of campaigns. If the CEO of MegaCorp wants to support George Dubya, then it should be his money/stocks, and not that of the shareholders. Ditto for the unions.
But I can indeed mix QPL and "truely free" software! I can mix BSD and QPL, X and QPL, Artistic and QPL. It gets problematic when I try to mix it with an exclusive license like GPL, but that's only because the GPL is incompatible with anything other than itself. But this can still be done! Just take a look at KDE(GPL) and QT(QPL).
The obvious connotation of "Open Source" is that the source code is open! This may not be a 100% accurate connotation, but accurate enough compared to the obvious connotation that "Free Software" is gratis!
But I have serious problems with the following statement. Perhaps you merely worded it incorrectly.
"I only have a problem with people trying to attract business when it compromises on morals, such as (a) does."
Any code of moral behavior that one ascribes to is a religion (or at least religious like). You might not call it a religion, but that does not change the fact. To insist that one ascribe to certain FSF philosphies in order to be moral is to elevate the FSF to the status of a religion. I'm sorry, I cannot and will not do this.
When I use the term "Open Source" I am compromising nothing. To suggest that I am immoral in doing so is extremely offensive.
If Open Source Software is almost, but not quite, the same as Free Software, then what exactly is the objective difference? Notice I said "objective" and not "subjective". I already understand that Free Software is morally superior to Open Source, but is there any difference for a FSF-agnostic?
Oh yes, I have read those pages. And they still have nothing to do with political liberty. They give me the freedom to use someone else's software. They are a list of permissions. I have the permission to redistribute the software. I have the permission to modify the software. I have permission to redistribute the modifications. And so on. If you think that Free Software is morally akin to Free Speech, do you also think that it should be enshrined in the Bill of Rights as well?
I'll rephrase your question to me. Who precisely forces you to use Sun's license? If you are free to choose not to use it, then it isn't restricting your freedom!
The Sun license says that I must follow their rules to use their source code. Ironically enough, Richard Stallman says exactly the same thing: follow my rules or don't use my software.
These are your opinions only. You are free, of course, to consider people who disagree with your diatriabes to be ignorant buffoons with no concept of the truth. However, I am also free to think the same of you, particularly when you say that even RMS doesn't understand what Free Software is.
You may find that the QPL doesn't meet your needs of utility, but it is every bit as free as the GPL. Of course the QPL has restrictions on the how you can modify the source code. So does the GPL! If you don't believe in intellectual property, then the software that you possess is yours and yours alone, and neither Richard Stallman nor Erik Eng have anything to say about what you do with it. If there is no IP, then violate the GPL to your hearts content!
"I want source with my software because that is my right!"
But it's not your software! It's mine. I own it, it is my intellectual property. If it was not mine, then I couldn't demand that you follow the dictates of the GPL license that I put it under! If there is no intellectual property, then ALL software is public domain.
You may have the right to fix YOUR broken chair, but you have no right whatsoever to fix MY broken chair that I lent to you.
I'll ignore the fact that RMS (Richard, not Redhat) considers the QPL to be free, and concentrate one a misreading of the QPL. The license says in effect, "if you use our open source library, your application must also be open source." This clause prohibits closed "public" beta testing, ala Corel.
Looking at the first paragraph of section 6, subsection c only applies to applications that are "distributed". This clause merely guarantees that all modifications can be returned to the initial developers.
If this distro were pure GPL only, it would be unusable! Do you even know what the GPL is? Take out all non-GPL programs. You have no X!!! Which means no Gnome!!! No Mozilla, Apache, etc. Take out impure forms of the GPL and you have no Perl (double licensed), or even the Linux kernel (expceptions)!
This is not a showcase of GPL-only stuff. It is merely the showcase of Redhat's panderings to the vocal GNU minority.
Redhat has always hated KDE. Their actions speak for themselves. First they declared KDE "illegal" (Matt Welsh's word, not mine). Then they fund, promote and actively support KDE's competitor, but do not give one penny to Harmony. Then when the market expresses its dislike of the non-KDE policy by switching to Mandrake or SuSE, they finally include KDE. But this KDE is broken, and the distro still requires the use of Gnome. And they still have the whitepaper declaring KDE illegal up on their site! (they finally removed it after dozens of emails pointed out their hypocracy. Perhaps the Gnome FAQ should remove their link to it as well:-)) Finally, still wanting to cater to the rabid anti-KDE crowd, they issue a new release that specifically mentions the lack of KDE in its advertisements. But Redhat must still believe in choice, because we now have a choice between a KDE-free distro for $25 and a distro with KDE included for $80.
Not only does Redhat want to be the market leader, apparently they also want to be the moral arbiters of the Linux community. Bob Young says he wants to be the "Heinz" of the Linux world. Sorry, Bob. I prefer "Hunts".
It's apparent you're still confused. You said "the differences between Open Source and Free Software (as in GNU licensed according ot the Free Software movement)". I'm sorry, but "GPL" is not the definition of "Free". Software licensed under the BSD, MIT(X), Artistic, MPL, QPL, and many other licenses are also free. Sofware does not have to be under a GNU license in order to be free.
The FSF definition of Free Software, and the OSI definition of Open Source Software, ARE THE SAME! The OSI definition goes into more detail, but every example of Open Source Software is also Free Software, and vice versa.
Philosophically, RMS and the FSF see Free Software as a political freedom (aka free speech), whereas the Open Source Initiative concentrates on the practical and pragmatic. Saying that Open Source is wrong is stupid. It's like saying any newspaper that doesn't have "free" in its name is ignoring freedom of the press.
Of course, many people see the "Free" (or "Libre") of "Free Software" as referring to something other than a political liberty. They see the "freedoms" issued by a license as synonymous with "permissions." The deeper issues that RMS refers to aren't emphasized because, when one goes searching for them with an unfettered mind, they simply don't exist.
"Open Source is a movement that encourages people to release their source code without caring about the freedom associated with it."
And what freedom would that be? It's not a political freedom. I call it Free Software because it's free for me to use it, not because it gives me some right akin to free speech. If you truly think Free Software is the moral equivalent of Free Speech, then you really don't know much at all about Free Speech. Free Speech gives me the right NOT to speak. Free Software as defined by RMS tells me that I MUST release my source code.
"I care about good software, but I care more about freedom."
Good for you. I feel the same way. Unfortunately, Free Software has nothing to do with freedom. If Congress is passing onerous laws like UCITA, or preventing me from creating code through patent laws, then they are taking away my freedom. But Sun does nothing to infringe any of my natural and unalienable rights, or any of my political freedoms granted or ungranted by my government.
"Open Source" is much more accurate than "Free". And "open" is just as positive as "free". Unfortunately, "open" doesn't have the emotional quality that "free" does. Revolutionaries always like the words "free" and "freedom". They incite emotions in the simple populace, who are so ignorant that they fall for that old trick, and gladly install dictators over them.
Stop fooling yourself. Free Software is not liberty.
Why does this come up everytime mention is made of sometime making money off of Free Software? The only software Bob Young is making money on is that software whose authors gave him explicit permission to do so. If you look at the GPL, LGPL, Artistic License, BSD License, QPL, etc., they all give Bob Young permission to put the software into his distribution, sell the distribution, sell support for the software, and many other commercial rights.
Now, you have every right to believe that money is evil, and that Bob Young is exploiting the working class. You also have the right to be wrong.
I've said this before, but apparently you weren't listening: "If you don't want Bob Young making money off of your software, why the fsck did you make it Free?!?"
"Que Pasa" is not an exact translation of "What's Happening". They have different connotations in their respective languages. Will I get in trouble if I set up www.wuzzup.com" or www.wiegehts.com?
Wasn't there several prior commercial instances of "What's Happening" or its English variations? These dorks don't even have a valid trademark. If it's registered then quepasa should challenge it.
Isn't it time for Gnome to get their own HTML browser? After all, Gnome is already approaching the bloated side. Clicking on an URL and having the 500 pound monstrosity called Navigator pop up is enough to send 16Meg systems into terminal thrashing.
Since there's so many accusations of the FSF and GNU being communistic, perhaps this really does refer to the October Revolution. Remember how Lenin was summoned to Moscow after the Czars were thrown out of rulership? The old evil feudalistic regime was being replaced by a non-communistic government. This was intolerable. Freedom must not be allowed to come to Russia unless it was the approved Marxist/Leninist version. So Soviet Russia was born, those few months of fledgling freedom erased from the history books.
Is this what October Gnome means? Non-GNU desktops are popular. This is intolerable. All supporters of the political party known as GNU must band together. This is a revolution. KDE must be utterly destroyed, fair or foul, and its memory erased from history. Free Software must not be allowed to exist without the blessings and sanctifications of St. Ignutius.
The government is not a company. By saying "and all other" you are implying that they are equivalent. This is nonsense. The government has sole monopoly over the creation and enforcement of laws and the imposition and collection of taxes. If there are any companies that have these priviledges, then they do so because a government have them to them.
And companies won't leave the internet alone because most of the internet is theirs! There may be a few charitable nodes out there, but 95% of the internet is owned by a commercial entity or funded through government taxes. Saying you want companies to leave the internet alone is like saying you want commercial publishers to leave the newspapers alone.
Of course GNU software won't use Qt. If they could get away with it, they wouldn't use *anything* that's not officially GNU. Rather like Microsoft.
But GNU/GPL/RMS is not the holy trinity of Free and Open software. Not by a long shot. RMS is not my god and I'm not going to pattern my life after his wishes. If RMS doesn't want me to be able to choose a non-GNU desktop, then to Hell with him! I don't give a fart in a hurricane how many people are using Gnome or KDE or whatever. If I wanted to use what everybody else is using, I'd be using Windows.
Re:KDE provides a fully themeable widget engine
on
KDE Looks Ahead
·
· Score: 2
But is this plugin usable for straight Qt, or does it need KDE as well? I browsed through the CVS and didn't find anything usable for straight Qt there.
First off, Qt is just a pretty at GTK. All you need to do is implement a style. Unfortunately, there are few style available for Qt2.0. I'm on the verge of writing a Qt style engine, but who knows if I'll get time.
But I absolutely agree with you on Qt's productivity! Now I couldn't write a email client in an hour, I'm not that good yet. But I've thrown away dialog editors because setting up layouts and widgets by hand is almost as fast. When QtArch gets upgraded to Qt 2.0, then you will have something very close to a Free RAD.
I am currently working on my second Qt app. The first one took six months. Kept finding a better way to do it and going back and rewriting. I cursed MFC the whole time for teaching me bad habits. This second project is going much, much faster. It's only been a month and it's looking like it will be at feature complete in a week or two. It already looks infinitely better than my first one. Trolls documentation is so great, that O'Reilly's book is almost superflous.
First off, it seems to me that your only criteria for software excellence is that is has GNU in front of its name. That other people prefer other software, or have no preference, must be beyond your comprehension.
"they use QT"
This is a criticism? Gnome uses QTK. What's the difference? Both are Free and Open. Both are of high quality. One just doesn't have a "G" in front.
"they use C++ to write the core libs"
So what? C++ is an open, standardized and freely available language. Every bit as much as that other language used to write the core libs of Gnome. GUIs use object-like constructs, messaging, subclassing, etc. It makes sense to write GUIs in an OO language.
"they abandon corba"
They did not abandon CORBA. They just stopped using it for the GUI.
"they critize gnome left and rigth"
BFD. You're criticizing KDE but you don't see me crying about it. If it's okay for Gnomies to malign KDE, then the opposite is fair game.
"well, it was nice competing with you KDE."
ROTFL!!! Anonymous cowards now have the priviledge of deciding which desktop will win or lose?!? Make me laugh any harder and I'll start shooting milk out my nose (visual mercifully deleted). This is not a zero-sum game. Both Gnome and KDE can win. But if you insist on only one desktop for everyone, then you will be the one who loses.
"It sounds like KDE is becoming more and more like commercial software."
What?! First of all, Free Software as defined by RMS, and Open Source Software as defined by OSI, are not antagonistic towards commercial software. On the contrary, they are in support of it. Second, what's so bad about "commercial" software? Not everything can be the result of a hobby. Developers have to feed their families as well, so why not do so using their skills?
"If KDE moves away from standards (CORBA) and encourages developers to use its own (open, but KDE-specific) shared libraries for communication between the applications and the desktop..."
First of all, and this has been stated here dozens of times, KDE is not abandoning CORBA. OpenParts is just a layer between CORBA and the GUI.
Second, why shouldn't they use their own libraries? That's precisely what KDE (and Gnome) is, a bunch of shared libraries! One of the participants in the communication is always a KDE component, so it makes no difference if it is a KDE library or not. The number of people desiring to use the KDE communication implementation between two non-KDE applications is insignificant.
Third, if I recall, Gnome encourages its developers to use Gnome shared libraries as well. That's what makes Gnome Gnome!
"Both DCOP and Kanossa would only work under KDE..."
Not necessarily. Remember your earlier point about them being shared libraries. Nothing prevents the interface from being used by Gnome, XFCE or anything else.
"That is, unless you link your software with the KDE libraries, but then again the developers would then be tied to KDE."
I'm not sure I know where you're coming from with this. All KDE applications have to be linked with KDE, just as all Gnome applications have to be linked with Gnome. If Gnome implements a Kanossa interface, or if KDE adds a Gnome interface for Kanossa, then it doesn't matter if your application is Gnome or KDE. If your application is tied to neither desktop, you will still have to use someone's communication protocols!
"Is it really necessary to give away this freedom (not linking with KDE libraries and Qt) to gain some efficiency?"
What's the difference between linking to KDE and Qt versus linking to Gnome and GTK? Playing devil's advocate, Gnome already gave away this "freedom" when it mandated its own shared libraries.
A lot of posts here that Opera doesn't understand what free is, or otherwise complaining about Opera not being free. I think that most of these posters are still grossly confused between gratis and libre. Opera is neither but this hardly makes it satanspawn.
TAANSTAFL was first coined in the Great Depression of the US. Signs proclaimed "free lunch", but those seeking freebies during that hard time soon realized that "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch", since they had to "endure" sermons. Sometimes I think the preaching and gnuspeak on slashdot is the price paid for free software. Yeah, you don't have to pay money for Mozilla, but you have to endure endless sermons on how it is morally superior to Opera, how its developers are altruistic saints, and how those/.'s who don't know the difference between an assign and an equivalence are nonetheless guaranteed a place in hacker paradise.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a good thing for the unwashed newbies to have only one WM available for installation. And although it's nice to say that knowledgable users can download other stuff off the net, downloading and installing Gnome, as an example, is hardly trivial.
Caldera (and the forthcoming Corel) should include alternate Window Managers and other non-default applications on a separate CD. That way a newbie can do an initial install, get comfortable with Linux, then start exploring "Disk 2".
I agree absolutely. Let everyone contribute as much as they want. There are thousands of people who contribute one dollar for everyone that contributes one thousand dollars. And there are thousands of them for every one that could contribute one million.
But I would add one other requirement: contributions from eligible voters only. Not only would this eliminate the foreign funding scandals that are arisen in the US, but it would also eliminate corporate funding of campaigns. If the CEO of MegaCorp wants to support George Dubya, then it should be his money/stocks, and not that of the shareholders. Ditto for the unions.
But I can indeed mix QPL and "truely free" software! I can mix BSD and QPL, X and QPL, Artistic and QPL. It gets problematic when I try to mix it with an exclusive license like GPL, but that's only because the GPL is incompatible with anything other than itself. But this can still be done! Just take a look at KDE(GPL) and QT(QPL).
The obvious connotation of "Open Source" is that the source code is open! This may not be a 100% accurate connotation, but accurate enough compared to the obvious connotation that "Free Software" is gratis!
But I have serious problems with the following statement. Perhaps you merely worded it incorrectly.
"I only have a problem with people trying to attract business when it compromises on morals, such as (a) does."
Any code of moral behavior that one ascribes to is a religion (or at least religious like). You might not call it a religion, but that does not change the fact. To insist that one ascribe to certain FSF philosphies in order to be moral is to elevate the FSF to the status of a religion. I'm sorry, I cannot and will not do this.
When I use the term "Open Source" I am compromising nothing. To suggest that I am immoral in doing so is extremely offensive.
If Open Source Software is almost, but not quite, the same as Free Software, then what exactly is the objective difference? Notice I said "objective" and not "subjective". I already understand that Free Software is morally superior to Open Source, but is there any difference for a FSF-agnostic?
Oh yes, I have read those pages. And they still have nothing to do with political liberty. They give me the freedom to use someone else's software. They are a list of permissions. I have the permission to redistribute the software. I have the permission to modify the software. I have permission to redistribute the modifications. And so on. If you think that Free Software is morally akin to Free Speech, do you also think that it should be enshrined in the Bill of Rights as well?
I'll rephrase your question to me. Who precisely forces you to use Sun's license? If you are free to choose not to use it, then it isn't restricting your freedom!
The Sun license says that I must follow their rules to use their source code. Ironically enough, Richard Stallman says exactly the same thing: follow my rules or don't use my software.
These are your opinions only. You are free, of course, to consider people who disagree with your diatriabes to be ignorant buffoons with no concept of the truth. However, I am also free to think the same of you, particularly when you say that even RMS doesn't understand what Free Software is.
You may find that the QPL doesn't meet your needs of utility, but it is every bit as free as the GPL. Of course the QPL has restrictions on the how you can modify the source code. So does the GPL! If you don't believe in intellectual property, then the software that you possess is yours and yours alone, and neither Richard Stallman nor Erik Eng have anything to say about what you do with it. If there is no IP, then violate the GPL to your hearts content!
"I want source with my software because that is my right!"
But it's not your software! It's mine. I own it, it is my intellectual property. If it was not mine, then I couldn't demand that you follow the dictates of the GPL license that I put it under! If there is no intellectual property, then ALL software is public domain.
You may have the right to fix YOUR broken chair, but you have no right whatsoever to fix MY broken chair that I lent to you.
I'll ignore the fact that RMS (Richard, not Redhat) considers the QPL to be free, and concentrate one a misreading of the QPL. The license says in effect, "if you use our open source library, your application must also be open source." This clause prohibits closed "public" beta testing, ala Corel.
Looking at the first paragraph of section 6, subsection c only applies to applications that are "distributed". This clause merely guarantees that all modifications can be returned to the initial developers.
If this distro were pure GPL only, it would be unusable! Do you even know what the GPL is? Take out all non-GPL programs. You have no X!!! Which means no Gnome!!! No Mozilla, Apache, etc. Take out impure forms of the GPL and you have no Perl (double licensed), or even the Linux kernel (expceptions)!
This is not a showcase of GPL-only stuff. It is merely the showcase of Redhat's panderings to the vocal GNU minority.
Redhat has always hated KDE. Their actions speak for themselves. First they declared KDE "illegal" (Matt Welsh's word, not mine). Then they fund, promote and actively support KDE's competitor, but do not give one penny to Harmony. Then when the market expresses its dislike of the non-KDE policy by switching to Mandrake or SuSE, they finally include KDE. But this KDE is broken, and the distro still requires the use of Gnome. And they still have the whitepaper declaring KDE illegal up on their site! (they finally removed it after dozens of emails pointed out their hypocracy. Perhaps the Gnome FAQ should remove their link to it as well :-)) Finally, still wanting to cater to the rabid anti-KDE crowd, they issue a new release that specifically mentions the lack of KDE in its advertisements. But Redhat must still believe in choice, because we now have a choice between a KDE-free distro for $25 and a distro with KDE included for $80.
Not only does Redhat want to be the market leader, apparently they also want to be the moral arbiters of the Linux community. Bob Young says he wants to be the "Heinz" of the Linux world. Sorry, Bob. I prefer "Hunts".
It's apparent you're still confused. You said "the differences between Open Source and Free Software (as in GNU licensed according ot the Free Software movement)". I'm sorry, but "GPL" is not the definition of "Free". Software licensed under the BSD, MIT(X), Artistic, MPL, QPL, and many other licenses are also free. Sofware does not have to be under a GNU license in order to be free.
The FSF definition of Free Software, and the OSI definition of Open Source Software, ARE THE SAME! The OSI definition goes into more detail, but every example of Open Source Software is also Free Software, and vice versa.
Philosophically, RMS and the FSF see Free Software as a political freedom (aka free speech), whereas the Open Source Initiative concentrates on the practical and pragmatic. Saying that Open Source is wrong is stupid. It's like saying any newspaper that doesn't have "free" in its name is ignoring freedom of the press.
Of course, many people see the "Free" (or "Libre") of "Free Software" as referring to something other than a political liberty. They see the "freedoms" issued by a license as synonymous with "permissions." The deeper issues that RMS refers to aren't emphasized because, when one goes searching for them with an unfettered mind, they simply don't exist.
"Open Source is a movement that encourages people to release their source code without caring about the freedom associated with it."
And what freedom would that be? It's not a political freedom. I call it Free Software because it's free for me to use it, not because it gives me some right akin to free speech. If you truly think Free Software is the moral equivalent of Free Speech, then you really don't know much at all about Free Speech. Free Speech gives me the right NOT to speak. Free Software as defined by RMS tells me that I MUST release my source code.
"I care about good software, but I care more about freedom."
Good for you. I feel the same way. Unfortunately, Free Software has nothing to do with freedom. If Congress is passing onerous laws like UCITA, or preventing me from creating code through patent laws, then they are taking away my freedom. But Sun does nothing to infringe any of my natural and unalienable rights, or any of my political freedoms granted or ungranted by my government.
"Open Source" is much more accurate than "Free". And "open" is just as positive as "free". Unfortunately, "open" doesn't have the emotional quality that "free" does. Revolutionaries always like the words "free" and "freedom". They incite emotions in the simple populace, who are so ignorant that they fall for that old trick, and gladly install dictators over them.
Stop fooling yourself. Free Software is not liberty.
Why does this come up everytime mention is made of sometime making money off of Free Software? The only software Bob Young is making money on is that software whose authors gave him explicit permission to do so. If you look at the GPL, LGPL, Artistic License, BSD License, QPL, etc., they all give Bob Young permission to put the software into his distribution, sell the distribution, sell support for the software, and many other commercial rights.
Now, you have every right to believe that money is evil, and that Bob Young is exploiting the working class. You also have the right to be wrong.
I've said this before, but apparently you weren't listening: "If you don't want Bob Young making money off of your software, why the fsck did you make it Free?!?"
"Que Pasa" is not an exact translation of "What's Happening". They have different connotations in their respective languages. Will I get in trouble if I set up www.wuzzup.com" or www.wiegehts.com?
Wasn't there several prior commercial instances of "What's Happening" or its English variations? These dorks don't even have a valid trademark. If it's registered then quepasa should challenge it.
Isn't it time for Gnome to get their own HTML browser? After all, Gnome is already approaching the bloated side. Clicking on an URL and having the 500 pound monstrosity called Navigator pop up is enough to send 16Meg systems into terminal thrashing.
Since there's so many accusations of the FSF and GNU being communistic, perhaps this really does refer to the October Revolution. Remember how Lenin was summoned to Moscow after the Czars were thrown out of rulership? The old evil feudalistic regime was being replaced by a non-communistic government. This was intolerable. Freedom must not be allowed to come to Russia unless it was the approved Marxist/Leninist version. So Soviet Russia was born, those few months of fledgling freedom erased from the history books.
Is this what October Gnome means? Non-GNU desktops are popular. This is intolerable. All supporters of the political party known as GNU must band together. This is a revolution. KDE must be utterly destroyed, fair or foul, and its memory erased from history. Free Software must not be allowed to exist without the blessings and sanctifications of St. Ignutius.
The government is not a company. By saying "and all other" you are implying that they are equivalent. This is nonsense. The government has sole monopoly over the creation and enforcement of laws and the imposition and collection of taxes. If there are any companies that have these priviledges, then they do so because a government have them to them.
And companies won't leave the internet alone because most of the internet is theirs! There may be a few charitable nodes out there, but 95% of the internet is owned by a commercial entity or funded through government taxes. Saying you want companies to leave the internet alone is like saying you want commercial publishers to leave the newspapers alone.
But what if your distribution doesn't distribute that particular package? Are you SOL? Or what if it's something you downloaded?
The newbie should already know the the single most popular installer, it's called reading the README.
Of course GNU software won't use Qt. If they could get away with it, they wouldn't use *anything* that's not officially GNU. Rather like Microsoft.
But GNU/GPL/RMS is not the holy trinity of Free and Open software. Not by a long shot. RMS is not my god and I'm not going to pattern my life after his wishes. If RMS doesn't want me to be able to choose a non-GNU desktop, then to Hell with him! I don't give a fart in a hurricane how many people are using Gnome or KDE or whatever. If I wanted to use what everybody else is using, I'd be using Windows.
But is this plugin usable for straight Qt, or does it need KDE as well? I browsed through the CVS and didn't find anything usable for straight Qt there.
First off, Qt is just a pretty at GTK. All you need to do is implement a style. Unfortunately, there are few style available for Qt2.0. I'm on the verge of writing a Qt style engine, but who knows if I'll get time.
But I absolutely agree with you on Qt's productivity! Now I couldn't write a email client in an hour, I'm not that good yet. But I've thrown away dialog editors because setting up layouts and widgets by hand is almost as fast. When QtArch gets upgraded to Qt 2.0, then you will have something very close to a Free RAD.
I am currently working on my second Qt app. The first one took six months. Kept finding a better way to do it and going back and rewriting. I cursed MFC the whole time for teaching me bad habits. This second project is going much, much faster. It's only been a month and it's looking like it will be at feature complete in a week or two. It already looks infinitely better than my first one. Trolls documentation is so great, that O'Reilly's book is almost superflous.
First off, it seems to me that your only criteria for software excellence is that is has GNU in front of its name. That other people prefer other software, or have no preference, must be beyond your comprehension.
"they use QT"
This is a criticism? Gnome uses QTK. What's the difference? Both are Free and Open. Both are of high quality. One just doesn't have a "G" in front.
"they use C++ to write the core libs"
So what? C++ is an open, standardized and freely available language. Every bit as much as that other language used to write the core libs of Gnome. GUIs use object-like constructs, messaging, subclassing, etc. It makes sense to write GUIs in an OO language.
"they abandon corba"
They did not abandon CORBA. They just stopped using it for the GUI.
"they critize gnome left and rigth"
BFD. You're criticizing KDE but you don't see me crying about it. If it's okay for Gnomies to malign KDE, then the opposite is fair game.
"well, it was nice competing with you KDE."
ROTFL!!! Anonymous cowards now have the priviledge of deciding which desktop will win or lose?!? Make me laugh any harder and I'll start shooting milk out my nose (visual mercifully deleted). This is not a zero-sum game. Both Gnome and KDE can win. But if you insist on only one desktop for everyone, then you will be the one who loses.
"It sounds like KDE is becoming more and more like commercial software."
What?! First of all, Free Software as defined by RMS, and Open Source Software as defined by OSI, are not antagonistic towards commercial software. On the contrary, they are in support of it. Second, what's so bad about "commercial" software? Not everything can be the result of a hobby. Developers have to feed their families as well, so why not do so using their skills?
"If KDE moves away from standards (CORBA) and encourages developers to use its own (open, but KDE-specific) shared libraries for communication between the applications and the desktop..."
First of all, and this has been stated here dozens of times, KDE is not abandoning CORBA. OpenParts is just a layer between CORBA and the GUI.
Second, why shouldn't they use their own libraries? That's precisely what KDE (and Gnome) is, a bunch of shared libraries! One of the participants in the communication is always a KDE component, so it makes no difference if it is a KDE library or not. The number of people desiring to use the KDE communication implementation between two non-KDE applications is insignificant.
Third, if I recall, Gnome encourages its developers to use Gnome shared libraries as well. That's what makes Gnome Gnome!
"Both DCOP and Kanossa would only work under KDE..."
Not necessarily. Remember your earlier point about them being shared libraries. Nothing prevents the interface from being used by Gnome, XFCE or anything else.
"That is, unless you link your software with the KDE libraries, but then again the developers would then be tied to KDE."
I'm not sure I know where you're coming from with this. All KDE applications have to be linked with KDE, just as all Gnome applications have to be linked with Gnome. If Gnome implements a Kanossa interface, or if KDE adds a Gnome interface for Kanossa, then it doesn't matter if your application is Gnome or KDE. If your application is tied to neither desktop, you will still have to use someone's communication protocols!
"Is it really necessary to give away this freedom (not linking with KDE libraries and Qt) to gain some efficiency?"
What's the difference between linking to KDE and Qt versus linking to Gnome and GTK? Playing devil's advocate, Gnome already gave away this "freedom" when it mandated its own shared libraries.
"There ain't no such thing as a free lunch!"
/.'s who don't know the difference between an assign and an equivalence are nonetheless guaranteed a place in hacker paradise.
A lot of posts here that Opera doesn't understand what free is, or otherwise complaining about Opera not being free. I think that most of these posters are still grossly confused between gratis and libre. Opera is neither but this hardly makes it satanspawn.
TAANSTAFL was first coined in the Great Depression of the US. Signs proclaimed "free lunch", but those seeking freebies during that hard time soon realized that "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch", since they had to "endure" sermons. Sometimes I think the preaching and gnuspeak on slashdot is the price paid for free software. Yeah, you don't have to pay money for Mozilla, but you have to endure endless sermons on how it is morally superior to Opera, how its developers are altruistic saints, and how those