An aside:
People always whine about KDE vs Gnome and relative freedom, GPL, FSF, blahblahblah. But it is interesting to note that Ximian and Eazel release ALL their products under Free licenses. TheKompany says "We will be offering Kapital under a closed-source license. However, we are considering a limited open-source license, under whose terms purchasers of the software also receive source code. We are exploring other options for making the software as open as possible."
Actually, funny story. I was at a "History of Mac OS X" infosession here a few weeks ago, and the Apple guy was giving his shpiel. At the bottom of one slide, he said: "Compare this to other operating systems: Windows, Unix,... Easel [sic]?"
He then said he didn't think Easel would ever work because they were "just slapping a UI on top of a Unix system".
The guy sitting next to me almost split a kidney laughing.
And how would you make it simpler to install? Integrate all of these separate libraries into one monolithic evolution package?
This is a software engineering nono. Separate libraries means REUSABLE CODE. It means other developers (like myself) can use bonobo (or GConf, or...) without having a dependency on Evolution.
You seem to have conflicting desires. You want to compile it yourself, yet you want a seamlessly easy installation. Not that compiling it is that hard, but if you can't manage to figure out how to check things out of CVS and type './autogen.sh;make' -- USE THE PACKAGED VERSION!
And I'm not even going to respond to the KDE flamebait.
Slashdot Mirror
You could pay $30 for a "preview release", or $40 for a final version. Or you could just run Quicken instead.
Or you could use the just-as-polished, already available, open source product.
I bet you'd like some screenshots
An aside:
People always whine about KDE vs Gnome and relative freedom, GPL, FSF, blahblahblah. But it is interesting to note that Ximian and Eazel release ALL their products under Free licenses. TheKompany says "We will be offering Kapital under a closed-source license. However, we are considering a limited open-source license, under whose terms purchasers of the software also receive source code. We are exploring other options for making the software as open as possible."
Actions speak louder than words.
http://primates.ximian.com/~michael/guadec-bonobo- 2001/
:)
Actually, funny story. I was at a "History of Mac OS X" infosession here a few weeks ago, and the Apple guy was giving his shpiel. At the bottom of one slide, he said: "Compare this to other operating systems: Windows, Unix, ... Easel [sic]?"
He then said he didn't think Easel would ever work because they were "just slapping a UI on top of a Unix system".
The guy sitting next to me almost split a kidney laughing.
And how would you make it simpler to install? Integrate all of these separate libraries into one monolithic evolution package?
...) without having a dependency on Evolution.
This is a software engineering nono. Separate libraries means REUSABLE CODE. It means other developers (like myself) can use bonobo (or GConf, or
You seem to have conflicting desires. You want to compile it yourself, yet you want a seamlessly easy installation. Not that compiling it is that hard, but if you can't manage to figure out how to check things out of CVS and type './autogen.sh;make' -- USE THE PACKAGED VERSION!
And I'm not even going to respond to the KDE flamebait.
Sheesh.