Not only that, but AFAIK - correct me if I'm wrong - Ubuntu ships Compiz, just like other distributions do. The way it is written makes it sound like Ubuntu developers made up the whole thing from scratch and it's something unique to it.
That Ubuntu user base does't know this things is to be expected (since most are new and just assume that everything is Ubuntu, even the kernel is Ubuntu) but on an article...
The birthrate of ethnic Russians is going down quickly, the birthrate of minorities
Estonia must answer to its fellow EU members when it formulates foreign policy decisions.
Slightly offtopic... but what you say about Russia is even more true in Western Europe. If you consider that Russia is close to being "torn apart", I wonder what is your opinion on the rest of the EU (I think you're right BTW, since I think that Europe is also close to being torn apart).
You are exactly right; as I said on another post people are downmodding him because he says the truth, and to some that's an aswful thing to do since it destroys the virtual little world made of "dialogue of civilisations" other drivel.
His post is informative and a perfect insight on what Muslims in the Western world hold as their beliefs. Which is why, as I said previously, see no other end result than the end of Europe or the end of Islam in Europe. There is no middle-ground.
I am from a region in which this is historically well-known, even if a legion of PC historians try to sell their own little version filled with flowers and smiles: it's the myth of peaceful coexistence. In any event, we've done it before, I'm ready to play my part in doing it again.
I find it ironic that in the thread about free speech people mention trolling - which is exactly what is your concept of free speech about - right to express unpopular opinions.
Some people - not myself - only assumed you were trolling because they have a rather skewed view on what so-called moderate Muslims truly think. As such, your words are better categorised as a "troll" since taking them seriously would explain why the author of the book we're reading about said what he said. You see, many people like to make their own virtual "Western-style Muslims" so that they can still feel righteous when they attack those that simply quote what you said.
As for me, I know you're not trolling, which is why I consider the spread of Islam in Europe - through immigration and conversion - one of the most serious dangers to Europeans and European civilisation.
Are you using a laptop? Because I share your opinion, but that's only when looking directly at my laptop screen... if I lay down the screen a bit the contrast becomes *much* more noticeable... the dark grey appears almost white when I look at it directly.
This is not the first time I have noticed that laptops suck for this kind of thing though.
Do you even *know* the details on the Firefox/Iceweasel decision? What is your suggestion to the issue then?
The path of "ideology" is what allows people to have something that works and bitch about lack of "pragmatism". If not by those silly people following their "ideology" you would not be complaining about how you would "prefer" to see non-GNU vresions (apparently, just "because", no real reason).
Your comments about licencing don't make much sense either, no you cry about "choice". There is plenty of choice. gNewSense is a choice. Debian is a choice. RedHat is a choice. Running Windows Vista or OSX is a choice. I don't really understand what you're really complaining about.
I was referring to the way OSX itself is locked to Apple PCs, when there is no technical reason for it (only business reasons of not wanting OSX to run on other combinations of hardware). This is similar to DRM in that something prevents usage even though there is no real reason for being so.
ot as a free-software fundamentalist, I don't really mind running proprietary software if it's good.
Of course, that was clear from the beginning, never assumed otherwise, since you're using OSX. There is little or nothing that would led me to believe that you were part of the free software community, at least no more or less than if you used Windows.
Thanks for the comment; my problem seems to be indeed rarer then the dropped connection one, but not unique: the search term that brings up the occurrences is "Macbook Airport ttl=".
As for the stinkers, they can be excused if the support if top notch. I think that Apple had a very strong area in this (maybe they still do, don't know): even if the hardware had problems their user support was good compared to retail, which further served to mark a divide between faceless PC retailers that have little reason not to screw those who bought a Packard-Bell in prmotion last week and Apple, that cared for the costumers.
Thanks for the tip, much appreciated. Alas, I think my problem is slightly different: while it can be related eventually with some setting in the router I'm already using WPA2... the connection doesn't exactly drop: a ping to the wireless router will have ttl values of 200-1400ms (my ThinkPad with GNU/Linux displays a consistent 1.5ms). This makes everything slow as molasses.
I've searched around - being a Linux user I'm used to it - and until now most advices didn't work out (limit the speed of the router; change from 802.1g to 802.1n; other assorted recipes).
I'll thinker a bit with your advice though, since I'm allowing both WPA and WPA2 maybe the Mac tells me it is using WPA2 but secretly switches to WPA.
Still,bloody hell. I think that Macbook was a good buy, but this Airport problem is just something unforgivable really.
Hehehe, I used it on purpose. I almost used IBM PC-AT compatible, since those were the naming codes I remember from the Mac vs. PC rivalry in the late 80's/early 90's.
No, that's not what I was actually saying. I was saying that they have some nice details. So does a Sony Vaio.
You're immediate assumption that I was talking about something very special and unique is part of what I was referring to.
You're main point is that it runs OSX legally. That is true: the only difference between an Apple PC and a non-Apple PC is artificial, DRM-like OS lock. This as some nice features - less hardware to support,less drivers, etc - but it's not something "unique" or "new", it's merely a restriction with a purpose.
I have nothing against Apple, Apple users, or OSX. If anything I've got some thing that rub me off, and others that attract me. The ratio was enough to influence the wife in buying a Macbook, so I'm not exactly allergic to Apple.
As with all communities there are always some things to like and dislike, and I was pointing at one common Mac behavior: the ofte misplaced elitism. Elitism by itself, in some amounts, it's not bad: heck, most GNU/Linux users are "elitists" in a different way.
But some part of the Mac fan base is in a weird crossroad: they still want to "exclusive" feel,the feeling of a tight, marginalised community, while at the same time cheering the advances of Apple consumer electronics and surrendering to the obvious evidence that Mac computers are for almost all purposes PCs. This is not something easy to swallow, I can understand that, and personally I was a little disappointed with Apple's Intel shift, but that's the way life is.
That's one of the reasons why I view the MacBook fuckup as something even more serious: not only does Apple control the hardware they want to supply, they manage to ship sub-par choices!
There are some nice things about an Apple laptop: the design is nice, some details are nice, etc. But it's not like it's in a league of it's own: when one comes down to it it's a PC with selected components.
You're right though, and the cases *are* nice. The design is well-thought and there are some nice details that show a certain amount of attention to little things that in aggregate can make a difference.
Still, hardly enough to position modern Macs as more then Apple PCs; the PowerPC times of yore are over, and I think that deep-down many Apple fans regret that decision, since the Mhz jump has come at the expenses of lack of differentiation.
Indeed. It's almost laughable the veiled attempt at pseudo-elitism.
It might run Mac OS X, but one thing this OQO is not is a Mac.
No shit. To be a Mac it needs to be made by Apple. And perhaps have a faulty wireless card (yes, I have a MacBook, and that shitty Airport is a recurring problem, "just works" doesn't really extend to wireless).
There is nothing that separates a "Mac" from a PC: the Mac is, for all purposes, an Intel, IBM-compatible PC. Generally the Mac fans say that "OSX makes the Mac", but when they see OSX running on non-Apple PCs then confusion settles and vague sentences appear, like the above, that seem to be based on some mystical characteristic of a "Mac".
I know I'm personally deploying my Web 2.0 social-mashup-o-sphere site in z/VM running on z10.
Sure, it can be a bit tiresome to edit my blogroll in XEDIT, but the parallelism... woooosh! My AJAX just *flies* out of that VTAM, Beowulf clusters ain't got *nothing*on me!
In support of your argument, take a look at Burberry (the British brand). It imparted a certain status to the wearers, but when the chavs started to favour it to complement their bling... the brand lost its image as something "classy" people would wear and became associated with chavs. Even if they sold more shirts and hats the impact in terms of sales, with the brand itself saying that "Burberry is now synonymous with Chavs and thugs".
The Mac has lost something with the change to Intel; even if people say it doesn't matter and it's better in terms of performance, the change makes the Mac a branded PC, and many people liked PowerPC not because it was better, but because it was different. If it becomes popular to buy Macs it will surely lose partof the appeal for some. Maybe the added sells can make up for it though.
Assuming you're in Europe ("we"), it's your countries and your laws.
That's a correct assumption, and the laws are not sacred by virtue of existing. I'm highly critical of the latest EU-wide directives concerning "hate speech" since they are overly generic and encompassing, but that's another topic.
And it also describes laws in Europe in the past few decades, even predating the current influx of Islamic immigrants. Protected speech in Europe doesn't include, for example, Holocaust denial.
Which is not something I agree with.
With your command of English, it seems safe to assume that you've spent a great deal of time immersed in American media and American pop culture, and American views on what "freedom of speech" means.
I appreciate the compliment, but I wouldn't say I was - or am - "immersed" in American pop culture, at least not more than any other European due to the sheer magnitude of US influence in Western Europe and the world. One thing is for sure, I do not base my views on this matter on American perception and I'm generally quite critical of US policies and even cultural influence in Europe. Just as an example I'm socialist in most of my views - real socialist, not what passes as Socialism in the US.
However, simply because you feel something should be does not make it so,
That's a given for any topic where we present our opinion isn't it? I'm stating why I think Muslim immigration raises specific concerns by replying to a "moderate" Muslim and pointing out some rather essential divergences on what should and shouldn't be allowed. That doesn't mean it's the law of the land: actually, I'm under the impression that most laws are being changed to accomodate what shouldn't be accommodated, IMO.
and your own duly elected representatives have crafted your own laws shaping what speech is and is not protected.
Of course. Which I'm free to disagree with. You're basically saying that we're digging our own grave, and I agree with that.
But you would choose to blame the newly-arrived Islamic immigrant for seeking the protection of laws that you the native-born have crafted for yourselves long before his arrival?
I'm not sure what you're implying here. The secularisation of European society since the Enlightenment is something that I would consider an advancement. If you're comparing the Holocaust laws with this, then I can agree with you: those laws should disappear, if not only to stop giving that argument to those who are so keen to turn Europe into a Caliphate but at the same time fight against the dominance of Christianity. As I said elsewhere I'm a Pagan, so I don't really care for either, just find it interesting that so many people in the Left seem to complacent for a situation that is deeply reactionary, simply because it's born out of "newly-arrived Islamic immigrants".
Because it goes against the ideals of a foreign-produced television drama?
Sorry? Are you referring to the supposed US-based nature of my comments again? As I said, that's not my position at all, much to the contrary. If anything I'm generally accused of being excessively European in my approach of this issues.
This debate must however stop since it would probably lead us to a discussion about not only free speech but immigration, culture, race, nationality laws, identity, etc. And that's a debate I can't afford to have for several reasons, not least of all the laws you referred and the fact that the simple mention of such angles is enough to be labeled hate speech.
Not to sound offensive,but your speech is exactly the reason why Muslim immigration is seen as a plague by Europeans. Everything is "hate crime" and suddenly we must go to some sort of doublespeak sensitivity training to accomodate that.
"making derogatory cartoons of what's dear to me is NOTHING but hate crime"... this sums it up *perfectly*: anything anyone wants to say that displeases you should be considered hate crime, and as such forbidden. It sounds remarkably as a first step towards state-sanctioned Sharia law.
Maybe this comment is also hate crime? Who knows. What I *know* is that I can say that Jesus liked to dress in drag and had an affair with all of the apostles while smoking a joint and nobody wlil prevent me from saying it, nor will anyone - not even he "equally bad" Christians that are used as some sort of "they did it to!" scapegoat - try to kill me. But the moment I even *draw* a depiction off Mohammed I'm an hateful bastard who must be stoped because I'm infringing someones feelings.
There are places where this sort of behaviour is law. Saudi Arabia, for example. I would recommend to people displeased with my ability to say that Mohammed was a camel-sucking homo to move there.
PS: Just to be democratic, it's also perfectly legal to say that Jupiter likes little boys and Ariadne is a slut. Fine with me.
Is that the museum where we see Casaubon hiding at the beginning of Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum? Where the TRES have their rite? It is; it's were in the beginning the young couple is discussing the Pendulum experiment in rather cold terms, and where TRES makes the final rite with Belbo... I have found this link amongst others, wich both mentiones the pendulum an a "Découvre le béton" workshop... something aking to the "Amazing History of Metals". Coincidence? Ha!
The UNIX pedigree (I use the term loosely) derives from having a chain of descendents that reaches back to AT&T Unix. BSD (on which OS X is based) has this, but Linux does not. The BSDs removed all the AT&T Unix code during the litigation with At&T as part of the setlement (they were sued by stupid trolls back in the day).
The dev tools do not end at the compiler though... Interface Builder and Project Builder were proprietary, and at least in the beginning the Objectice-C runtime was also closed. Objective-C isn't proprietaty though, even taking into consideration that what most call "Objective-C" is really Objective-C with the OPENSTEP framework. Since the latter is a specification it's not proprietaty (GNUstep implements the OPENSTEP API).
All of what you say is true, KDE is all that and more and I'm not even a DE convert, prefering more minimalistic solutions. However, there is something about the look of KDE that just never felt right. Not sure if the colours, the icons, the combination of it, but GNOME comes through as a cleaner environment, when it is not. Perhaps in KDE4 this will change - or not, since this might be solely my perception of it and tastes differ.
Slashdot Mirror
Not only that, but AFAIK - correct me if I'm wrong - Ubuntu ships Compiz, just like other distributions do. The way it is written makes it sound like Ubuntu developers made up the whole thing from scratch and it's something unique to it.
That Ubuntu user base does't know this things is to be expected (since most are new and just assume that everything is Ubuntu, even the kernel is Ubuntu) but on an article...
The birthrate of ethnic Russians is going down quickly, the birthrate of minorities
Estonia must answer to its fellow EU members when it formulates foreign policy decisions.
Slightly offtopic... but what you say about Russia is even more true in Western Europe. If you consider that Russia is close to being "torn apart", I wonder what is your opinion on the rest of the EU (I think you're right BTW, since I think that Europe is also close to being torn apart).
You are exactly right; as I said on another post people are downmodding him because he says the truth, and to some that's an aswful thing to do since it destroys the virtual little world made of "dialogue of civilisations" other drivel.
His post is informative and a perfect insight on what Muslims in the Western world hold as their beliefs. Which is why, as I said previously, see no other end result than the end of Europe or the end of Islam in Europe. There is no middle-ground.
I am from a region in which this is historically well-known, even if a legion of PC historians try to sell their own little version filled with flowers and smiles: it's the myth of peaceful coexistence. In any event, we've done it before, I'm ready to play my part in doing it again.
I find it ironic that in the thread about free speech people mention trolling - which is exactly what is your concept of free speech about - right to express unpopular opinions.
Some people - not myself - only assumed you were trolling because they have a rather skewed view on what so-called moderate Muslims truly think. As such, your words are better categorised as a "troll" since taking them seriously would explain why the author of the book we're reading about said what he said. You see, many people like to make their own virtual "Western-style Muslims" so that they can still feel righteous when they attack those that simply quote what you said.
As for me, I know you're not trolling, which is why I consider the spread of Islam in Europe - through immigration and conversion - one of the most serious dangers to Europeans and European civilisation.
Are you using a laptop? Because I share your opinion, but that's only when looking directly at my laptop screen... if I lay down the screen a bit the contrast becomes *much* more noticeable... the dark grey appears almost white when I look at it directly.
This is not the first time I have noticed that laptops suck for this kind of thing though.
Do you even *know* the details on the Firefox/Iceweasel decision? What is your suggestion to the issue then?
The path of "ideology" is what allows people to have something that works and bitch about lack of "pragmatism". If not by those silly people following their "ideology" you would not be complaining about how you would "prefer" to see non-GNU vresions (apparently, just "because", no real reason).
Your comments about licencing don't make much sense either, no you cry about "choice". There is plenty of choice. gNewSense is a choice. Debian is a choice. RedHat is a choice. Running Windows Vista or OSX is a choice. I don't really understand what you're really complaining about.
. I've never run into any DRM issues on OS X
I was referring to the way OSX itself is locked to Apple PCs, when there is no technical reason for it (only business reasons of not wanting OSX to run on other combinations of hardware). This is similar to DRM in that something prevents usage even though there is no real reason for being so.
ot as a free-software fundamentalist, I don't really mind running proprietary software if it's good.
Of course, that was clear from the beginning, never assumed otherwise, since you're using OSX. There is little or nothing that would led me to believe that you were part of the free software community, at least no more or less than if you used Windows.
Thanks for the comment; my problem seems to be indeed rarer then the dropped connection one, but not unique: the search term that brings up the occurrences is "Macbook Airport ttl=".
As for the stinkers, they can be excused if the support if top notch. I think that Apple had a very strong area in this (maybe they still do, don't know): even if the hardware had problems their user support was good compared to retail, which further served to mark a divide between faceless PC retailers that have little reason not to screw those who bought a Packard-Bell in prmotion last week and Apple, that cared for the costumers.
Thanks for the tip, much appreciated. Alas, I think my problem is slightly different: while it can be related eventually with some setting in the router I'm already using WPA2... the connection doesn't exactly drop: a ping to the wireless router will have ttl values of 200-1400ms (my ThinkPad with GNU/Linux displays a consistent 1.5ms). This makes everything slow as molasses.
I've searched around - being a Linux user I'm used to it - and until now most advices didn't work out (limit the speed of the router; change from 802.1g to 802.1n; other assorted recipes).
I'll thinker a bit with your advice though, since I'm allowing both WPA and WPA2 maybe the Mac tells me it is using WPA2 but secretly switches to WPA.
Still,bloody hell. I think that Macbook was a good buy, but this Airport problem is just something unforgivable really.
Hehehe, I used it on purpose. I almost used IBM PC-AT compatible, since those were the naming codes I remember from the Mac vs. PC rivalry in the late 80's/early 90's.
No, that's not what I was actually saying. I was saying that they have some nice details. So does a Sony Vaio.
You're immediate assumption that I was talking about something very special and unique is part of what I was referring to.
You're main point is that it runs OSX legally. That is true: the only difference between an Apple PC and a non-Apple PC is artificial, DRM-like OS lock. This as some nice features - less hardware to support,less drivers, etc - but it's not something "unique" or "new", it's merely a restriction with a purpose.
I have nothing against Apple, Apple users, or OSX. If anything I've got some thing that rub me off, and others that attract me. The ratio was enough to influence the wife in buying a Macbook, so I'm not exactly allergic to Apple.
As with all communities there are always some things to like and dislike, and I was pointing at one common Mac behavior: the ofte misplaced elitism. Elitism by itself, in some amounts, it's not bad: heck, most GNU/Linux users are "elitists" in a different way.
But some part of the Mac fan base is in a weird crossroad: they still want to "exclusive" feel,the feeling of a tight, marginalised community, while at the same time cheering the advances of Apple consumer electronics and surrendering to the obvious evidence that Mac computers are for almost all purposes PCs. This is not something easy to swallow, I can understand that, and personally I was a little disappointed with Apple's Intel shift, but that's the way life is.
That's one of the reasons why I view the MacBook fuckup as something even more serious: not only does Apple control the hardware they want to supply, they manage to ship sub-par choices!
There are some nice things about an Apple laptop: the design is nice, some details are nice, etc. But it's not like it's in a league of it's own: when one comes down to it it's a PC with selected components.
You're right though, and the cases *are* nice. The design is well-thought and there are some nice details that show a certain amount of attention to little things that in aggregate can make a difference.
Still, hardly enough to position modern Macs as more then Apple PCs; the PowerPC times of yore are over, and I think that deep-down many Apple fans regret that decision, since the Mhz jump has come at the expenses of lack of differentiation.
Indeed. It's almost laughable the veiled attempt at pseudo-elitism.
It might run Mac OS X, but one thing this OQO is not is a Mac.
No shit. To be a Mac it needs to be made by Apple. And perhaps have a faulty wireless card (yes, I have a MacBook, and that shitty Airport is a recurring problem, "just works" doesn't really extend to wireless).
There is nothing that separates a "Mac" from a PC: the Mac is, for all purposes, an Intel, IBM-compatible PC. Generally the Mac fans say that "OSX makes the Mac", but when they see OSX running on non-Apple PCs then confusion settles and vague sentences appear, like the above, that seem to be based on some mystical characteristic of a "Mac".
I know I'm personally deploying my Web 2.0 social-mashup-o-sphere site in z/VM running on z10.
Sure, it can be a bit tiresome to edit my blogroll in XEDIT, but the parallelism... woooosh! My AJAX just *flies* out of that VTAM, Beowulf clusters ain't got *nothing*on me!
In support of your argument, take a look at Burberry (the British brand). It imparted a certain status to the wearers, but when the chavs started to favour it to complement their bling... the brand lost its image as something "classy" people would wear and became associated with chavs. Even if they sold more shirts and hats the impact in terms of sales, with the brand itself saying that "Burberry is now synonymous with Chavs and thugs".
The Mac has lost something with the change to Intel; even if people say it doesn't matter and it's better in terms of performance, the change makes the Mac a branded PC, and many people liked PowerPC not because it was better, but because it was different. If it becomes popular to buy Macs it will surely lose partof the appeal for some. Maybe the added sells can make up for it though.
They are the ones who make this Baby Shampoo. I think this is probably the most universal shampoo in existence.
Exactly. I find it absurd that some would subscribe to that quote only when it serves what they want to hear.
Assuming you're in Europe ("we"), it's your countries and your laws.
That's a correct assumption, and the laws are not sacred by virtue of existing. I'm highly critical of the latest EU-wide directives concerning "hate speech" since they are overly generic and encompassing, but that's another topic.
And it also describes laws in Europe in the past few decades, even predating the current influx of Islamic immigrants. Protected speech in Europe doesn't include, for example, Holocaust denial.
Which is not something I agree with.
With your command of English, it seems safe to assume that you've spent a great deal of time immersed in American media and American pop culture, and American views on what "freedom of speech" means.
I appreciate the compliment, but I wouldn't say I was - or am - "immersed" in American pop culture, at least not more than any other European due to the sheer magnitude of US influence in Western Europe and the world. One thing is for sure, I do not base my views on this matter on American perception and I'm generally quite critical of US policies and even cultural influence in Europe. Just as an example I'm socialist in most of my views - real socialist, not what passes as Socialism in the US.
However, simply because you feel something should be does not make it so,
That's a given for any topic where we present our opinion isn't it? I'm stating why I think Muslim immigration raises specific concerns by replying to a "moderate" Muslim and pointing out some rather essential divergences on what should and shouldn't be allowed. That doesn't mean it's the law of the land: actually, I'm under the impression that most laws are being changed to accomodate what shouldn't be accommodated, IMO.
and your own duly elected representatives have crafted your own laws shaping what speech is and is not protected.
Of course. Which I'm free to disagree with. You're basically saying that we're digging our own grave, and I agree with that.
But you would choose to blame the newly-arrived Islamic immigrant for seeking the protection of laws that you the native-born have crafted for yourselves long before his arrival?
I'm not sure what you're implying here. The secularisation of European society since the Enlightenment is something that I would consider an advancement. If you're comparing the Holocaust laws with this, then I can agree with you: those laws should disappear, if not only to stop giving that argument to those who are so keen to turn Europe into a Caliphate but at the same time fight against the dominance of Christianity. As I said elsewhere I'm a Pagan, so I don't really care for either, just find it interesting that so many people in the Left seem to complacent for a situation that is deeply reactionary, simply because it's born out of "newly-arrived Islamic immigrants".
Because it goes against the ideals of a foreign-produced television drama?
Sorry? Are you referring to the supposed US-based nature of my comments again? As I said, that's not my position at all, much to the contrary. If anything I'm generally accused of being excessively European in my approach of this issues.
This debate must however stop since it would probably lead us to a discussion about not only free speech but immigration, culture, race, nationality laws, identity, etc. And that's a debate I can't afford to have for several reasons, not least of all the laws you referred and the fact that the simple mention of such angles is enough to be labeled hate speech.
Not to sound offensive,but your speech is exactly the reason why Muslim immigration is seen as a plague by Europeans. Everything is "hate crime" and suddenly we must go to some sort of doublespeak sensitivity training to accomodate that.
"making derogatory cartoons of what's dear to me is NOTHING but hate crime"... this sums it up *perfectly*: anything anyone wants to say that displeases you should be considered hate crime, and as such forbidden. It sounds remarkably as a first step towards state-sanctioned Sharia law.
Maybe this comment is also hate crime? Who knows. What I *know* is that I can say that Jesus liked to dress in drag and had an affair with all of the apostles while smoking a joint and nobody wlil prevent me from saying it, nor will anyone - not even he "equally bad" Christians that are used as some sort of "they did it to!" scapegoat - try to kill me. But the moment I even *draw* a depiction off Mohammed I'm an hateful bastard who must be stoped because I'm infringing someones feelings.
There are places where this sort of behaviour is law. Saudi Arabia, for example. I would recommend to people displeased with my ability to say that Mohammed was a camel-sucking homo to move there.
PS: Just to be democratic, it's also perfectly legal to say that Jupiter likes little boys and Ariadne is a slut. Fine with me.
Great catch by the way.
The dev tools do not end at the compiler though... Interface Builder and Project Builder were proprietary, and at least in the beginning the Objectice-C runtime was also closed. Objective-C isn't proprietaty though, even taking into consideration that what most call "Objective-C" is really Objective-C with the OPENSTEP framework. Since the latter is a specification it's not proprietaty (GNUstep implements the OPENSTEP API).
All of what you say is true, KDE is all that and more and I'm not even a DE convert, prefering more minimalistic solutions. However, there is something about the look of KDE that just never felt right. Not sure if the colours, the icons, the combination of it, but GNOME comes through as a cleaner environment, when it is not. Perhaps in KDE4 this will change - or not, since this might be solely my perception of it and tastes differ.