The base intetion of the article I agree with though...the Safari Engine is much mure advanced than KHTML, due to more pragmatism in development.
Rather, it's more advanced because
a) Apple has bunch of paid developers doing full-time developement on it. KDE has a bunch of volunteers doing it whenever they have the time
b) Apple can pick and choose the improvements KDE-guys make in their tree and add them to WebCore. KDE-guys can't do the same with WebCore, since all they get is an occasional code-bomb that takes long time to sort out.
Of course the fact that KDE-guys write clean code, instead of coming up with quick hacks (like WebCore-guys seem to be doing) also adds to that.
So the flow of improvements is largely a one-way street, and one tree has lots of paid developers working on it. Is it REALLY one bit surprising that WebCore seems to be moving at a faster pace?
If your games are licenced under the GPL (like most Linux-apps are), then what's the problem with Qt? You could use it just fine.
Yes, the word I used was "hypocritical". Reason being that people like you whined when Qt wasn't free software. And now you whine when they licensed it under the GPL, and that means that it requires you to license your code under the GPL as well. So you guys kept on insisting that Qt must be free software. But when Qt insists (through it's license) that your software must be free software as well, you bitch and moan! Yes, that is hypocrisy in my books! You demand that Trolltech does something, but when they tell you to do the EXACT SAME THING, you whine! What's the matter? Not prepared to eat the same dogfood you dish out?
of course, if you dislike GPL, then that's your problem. Unfortunately most softare on Linux is GPL'ed.
Apple went with KHTML instead of Mozilla. Instead of gratitude, the KDE devs are angry that Apple isn't tailoring their patches for them?
KDE-guys did not complain about Apple as such. They even specificly mentioned that Apple is abiding by the license. what they complained about were the USERS who whined when KHTML took time to incorporate improvements made in WebCore!
Do you "get it" now, or do I have to hit you with a clue-by-four?
"Not everyone wants to change the world, but Apple does," he said, "and although they may have done the least required of them in accordance with the licences of the original source code, it was within their rights to do what they did, and no one should begrudge them for it."
Isn't that exactly what the KDE-developers said?? Sheesh!
I for one think that it's great that there are still people out there with a goal to create perfect code, and not just slap features together. It's interesting that Apple chose KHTML because the code was clean, fast and small. And now this guys suggests that KDE abandons those benefits and moves to Webcore (which has lost most of those benefits due to cutting corners and less than perfect code).
Is that it? Crummy code that is "good enough" is the way to go?
Re:Massive processor, not much for graphics though
on
The Xbox 360 Unveiled
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Not much of a GPU? it has 10MB of EDRAM, and it has 256GB/sec of bandwidth in to it! That's ALOT of bandwidth. No, it's fucking HUGE amount of bandwidth! And in addition, it has the regural GDDR3 at it's disposal as well.
And it has 48 pipelines running at 500Mhz. Current top of the line PC-GPU's have 16 pipelines running at around 500Mhz. So I think it's pretty safe to say that the GPU on this this is a real monster!
How about this.... If you force people to pay money to make software based on what is touted as a free software platform, you are in the wrong line of culture.
I'm sorry to tell you this, but.... That's the way it works in just about ALL GPL-based software! You can't take GPL'ed software and start selling it in a way Microsoft does for example. And last time I checked, most software on Linux seems to be GPL'ed.
Of course you are free to do as you please. Feel free to NOT use Qt (as you have done). No-one forces you to use it. But I find it rather weird that you whine how Qt pushes it's license on you. Well, that's the way GPL works! If you don't like it, don't use it. If you feel like whining about it, whine to RMS for coming up with such a crappy license! I mean, surely everyone should have the right to profit from other people's work without giving anything back, right?
Because the grandparent asked for my point of view, and because there's way too many irrational KDE cheerleaders on Slashdot that take every oppritunity to protect their platform and Trolltech.
I don't get it. I just don't. First people whine when Qt is not 100% free software. Then they fix the problem by licensing it under the GPL. And now those people whine that they can't use Qt for free without being limited by GPL! So they want others to write free software for them, as long as they can write non-free software.
I wonder who is "irrational" here? People march around telling that others (in this case, TT) should write free software. And when those people are told to write free software in return, they bitch and moan about it.
"Do as I say! Not as I do!". Just how hypocritical can people be?
Well, those buttons are the apps I use most of the time (I have added a fourth button for Kontact in there since I took the screenshot). And while you might say that it wastes screen-space, I find it ALOT easier to hit those buttons than I could hit some tiny buttons (I tried it, didn't like it). And considering that I still have two rows dedidated to active tasks, together with application-grouping (active if taskbar gets full), I never ever run in to cases where my taskbar gets full.
So while I could save tiny amount of space by using small launch-buttons, the benefits outweight the downsides, IMO. But then again, this is just my way of doing things, other people have different ways for sure.
Re:Read the article and know what is going on.
on
Safari vs. KHTML
·
· Score: 1
In addition, they have offered to move their code base to be multi-pltform. In the end, I think that the KHTML team will move towards this.
I fail to see how that could be a good thing. For starters:
a) Apple chose KHTML because the code was lean 'n mean. But Apple has been adding lots of features to WebCore that has sacrificed the "purity" of the code. So the advantage KHTML had over it's rivals (and the reason why Apple chose it in the first place!) has been disappearing in WebCore, and it might be gone already
b) KHTML-guys wanted to work with WebCore-guys, but nothing came out of it. And NOW WebCore-guys are suggesting that KDE dumps KHTML and move to WebCore. How exactly would that work? I mean, Apple wasn't interesting in working with KHTML-guys before, why would they do so now? Would KHTML-devels gain access to Apple's bugtracker? Would they have a shared CVS/Subversion/whatever for their developement? If the answer is "no" (as it has been all this time), then it means that KDE-guys could not do any KHTML/WebCore-developement. They would be at the mercy of Apple. KHTML-guys could just sit on their asses and hope that Apple releases good code.
Apple has clearly shown that they are not that interested in working with KDE-guys. So I find it pretty damn weird to hear them suggesting that KDE dumps KHTML and moves to WebCore. Didn't their past behavior show that they are not interested in working with others? And now KDE should rely on them for HTML-code? I think not!
WebCore and it's developers care about Apple and Safari. They couldn't care less about KDE and Konqueror. So why exactly should KDE rely on them?
KHTML: "Hey Apple, want to work with us a bit better? How about shared mailing-lists and CVS? We are even willing to sign NDA's so we can work with you guys!"
Apple: "Not interested"
KHTML: "OK. Could you at least release manageable patches instead of these huge code-bombs? It would be a nice thing to do and it wouldn't cause any extra problems for you"
Apple: "No. We have no intention of making this easy on you guys. We are fulfilling our legal obligations, but don't expect us to act nice about it"
KHTML: "Fine"
Time passes...
Apple: "Hey guys, wanna dump your HTML-engine and use ours instead? Yes yes, we treated you poorly in the past, but THIS TIME it will be better! Honest! Of course we can't allow you to work on the engine, you just gonna have to trust us to not screw you guys over! As you propably know, big corporations never screw the little-guy!"
Re:Here's a quote from Zack Rusin
on
Safari vs. KHTML
·
· Score: 1
Funny but it seems hes just unwilling to admit that apple did more for KHTML in the 2 years they have worked with them than KHTML did in the many years prior
Maybe, and it is to be expected. Partly because Apple has paid developers, and partly because the flow of improvements is more or less one-way street. When KHTML-guys made an improvement to KHTML, Apple could easily use it in WebCore. When Apple made improvements to WebCore, KHTML-guys have alot of problems merging that improvement to KHTML. And prior to Safari's launch, KHTML-guys knew nothing about WebCore. While Apple worked on WebCore, they could improve it AND use the improvements created by KHTML-team. But KHTML-guys could not use Apple's improvements.
So you could say that WebCore meant that KHTML got several extra developers (Apple-developers) in addition to existing developers (KHTML-developers). But before Safari was released, the improvements made to WebCore by Apple-devels did not flow back to KHTML, whereas improvements made by KHTML-devels did flow back to WebCore. After Safari was released, KHTML-guys got SOME improvements from WebCore-devels, but the process was difficult (as had been told).
Re:Its only the bad things we head about?
on
Safari vs. KHTML
·
· Score: 1
Do you have any links or references to back this up? I don't recall the fact that WebKit was based on KHTML ever being touted as a big issue in any Apple marketing material. Undoubtedly they may like such an impression, underdog as they are, but I haven't really seen anything from Apple that markets them as working closely with the OSS community.
Well, Steve Jobs proclaimed his love for open source during his keynote. And Apples older webpage (thanks to archive.org) about Safari said this:
Safari uses open source software -- for its Web page rendering engine, Safari draws on KHTML and KJS software from the KDE open source project. Being a good open source citizen, Apple shares its enhancements with the open source community.
More truthful comment would have been "Apple does the bare minimium in order to comply with the license of KHTML. We could make it easier for the KDE-guys, but we choose not to do so".
I have the exact opposite feeling. For years people thought that KDE had the better desktop, while Gnome had the better apps. But it seems to me that over the past few years KDE has really catched up as far as apps are concerned.
Before, everyone used XMMS for their music. Then we got Juk and Amarok, both kick-ass apps. Gnome had Evolution for their PIM, while KDE has nothing. Then we got Kontact. CD-Burning? K3B, the best app of it's kind on Linux. Editors? Kate. Konqueror got really good really fast. There's still GIMP, but KDE-folks are working on an alternative, and it shows alot of promise. GAIM used to be the best IM there is. Then we got Kopete. The list goes on and on.
You you seem to make the classic error on your post. Firefox, OpenOffice, Thunderbird and Eclipse etc. are in no shape or form tied to GTK or Gnome. You can use them on KDE just fine.
So what's wrong with GPL? Seriously? And you are NOT limited to either the GPL or "TT licensed applications". You are completely free to buy a commercial license of Qt and license your apps in any way you wish! I mean, if you are planning to write commercial apps, then surely you can afford the license? If you can't afford it, may I suggest a alternative career? If you can't make enough money from your apps in order to pay for quality set of tools, then I think you are in the wrong line of business.
In short: If you use Qt, you can use GPL or QPL by default. If you want to use another license, you can buy Qt, and license your apps any way you want to.
Fortunately, I don't even like the KDE desktop and platform in the first place, so this is a win-win in my case.:)
In other words: "I just used the opportunity to whine about a non-issue. And even if they fixed the problem I have with their toolkit, I still wouldn't use it!". So why whine about Qt/TT then? Obviously they are a complete non-issue to you, so why does it matter to you how they license their toolkit? Or did you just use this as an opportunity to mention "oh, BTW, I hate Qt and KDE"? Well, thanks for your insight!
How exactly is KDE a "Windows UI hack"? Please provide some examples. It has a taskbar? Gnome has that as well. "Start"-menu? Again: Gnome has that as well. It has windows? All GUI's have that. So why is KDE a "Windows UI hack", whereas Gnome (for example) is not?
What you seem to be thinking is that KDE should be different from Windows for the sole reason of being different. If it has some similarities to the way Windows works (all GUI's look more or less similar), it's automatically a bad thing. You don't mention any technical- or usability-reason why Windows is bad, you just think Windows == Bad. Anything that looks vaguely like Windows == Bad. And you fail to mention whether those flaws are still present in KDE. Your point just seems to be "OMG! Windows has [feature X]. And since KDE has [Feature X] as well, it sucks!". Well, Windows has windows, and xfce has windows as well. Clearly xfce sucks!
Yes, there are some similarities between Windows and KDE. There are also similarities between Gnome and KDE. And there are differences between each of them.
I use xfce4 exclusively and will never change.
Good for you! I tested xfce and I wasn't that exited about it. But it's a good thing that you like it. Choice is a good thing, no?
Those screenshots reflect a failing of open-source: their design is inconsistent, self-absorbed, cluttered, and useless.
The screenshots do not show the default desktop, it show how this particular user has set up his desktop. So it merely shows that you can customize KDE to your exact liking. And I don't see how that is a "failing of open source".
FWIW, my KDE-desktop looks like this. Quite a difference, no?
Please: if you want to complain about KDE, do not use some heavily modified desktop as your basis of complaining! The desktop shown on the previous screenshots are NOT what KDE looks like by default! It merely shows what this particular user prefers.
KDE is good, but it is probably not the best example of open source success because it is built on a commercial toolkit and because you are dependent on a commercial vendor for that toolkit.
Since Qt is licensed under the GPL since version 2.2 (5 fucking years ago! Hello-oo McFly?!?!?), and is therefore 100% open-source and free, I think we can safely draw the followjng conclusions from your comment:
a) you are a fucking moron who has no idea what he's talking about
and/or
b) You live in a barrel in middle of Siberia, and your access to more or less recent news is somewhat limited.
As a punishment for your moronic drivel, may I suggest that you go sit on an anthill for a while, while you contemplate the reality of the situation?
Yes, my text was harsh, but I'm getting SICK AND TIRED of listening to morons whine how Qt is "closed source" and/or "commercial", when the fact is that it was licensed under the GPL about 5 years ago! So it's not like it happened yesterday and not everyone have had a chance to find out about the license-change. But it was FIVE FUCKING YEARS AGO! Get on with the times or get the fuck out!
Now white headphones are becoming as ubiquitous as cell phones.
I have seen lots of those. And 90% of the time they were NOT used with an iPod. Just because Apple uses white headphones with iPods, does not mean that all white headphones are used with iPods.
If people were reasonable, they'd be able to identify what they don't need. (Yachts, cruises, SUVs, mansions, etc... are not needs)
Well, you don't really NEED a car at all. In fact, you do not really NEED an apartment/house either! We could live in barracks and eat oatmeal every day and wear convenient overalls. We would survive just fine. We do not really NEED restaurants, supermarkets, houses/apartments, bicycles, computers, libraries, electricity, internet etc. etc.. All we REALLY need is a warm place to stay and some food and water. Anything above that are not really needed.
Is that what you are advocating? No? Then you have some personal beliefs as to what you need and what you do not need? Well, I have my personal beliefs on that matter as well, and they include such things as computers (several in fact), house, car, BBQ, bicycle, television, cell-phone etc.etc.. Who is to say which of us is right and which is not? Apparently e both have personal opinions on this matter.
What is "extravagant" and what is not? Few decades ago having a television might have been considered "extravagant". A bit later color-TV's were "extravagant". Computers were "extravagant" at one point. Who decides what is extravagant and what is not?
Related to this, if people were somehow prevented from buying "extravagant" items, those items would never become normal items for the average Joe. Few years ago flat-screen TV's were expensive and regural folks couldn't afford them. Now they are pretty cheap, and within reach of regural people. Had they be deemed "extravagant" and people were denied from buying them, their developement would have stopped. In the big-picture, we would still be using radios, since televisions would be too "extravagant".
What you are advocating sounds tempting and it's easy to accept (for the poor masses at least). But when you really think about it, it would cause stagnation and lowering standards of living. The problem is that "hey, why not have enough money to live by, and give rest to others?", sounds very good, whereas in reality it wouldn't be as good as it sounds.
Untrue. PM (particulate matter) emissions from diesels is still a major problem.
Modern diesel-engines made by Peugeot have particulate-filters that cut the amount of particulates in the emissions to similar levels that gasoline-engines have.
"In an 18-month study of a fleet of Peugeot 607 taxicabs, the agency found that the cars had as little particulate in the exhaust as a gasoline engine, yet they produce 20% less carbon dioxide.
"For the 607 taxis using the filters, the level of emissions was far below the limits fixed by the Euro 3 norms, and the filters continued to perform to 80,000 km (50,000 miles), when they need to be renewed," Ademe says. "The diesel motor with particle filter is thus equivalent to a gasoline engine in terms of particulate emission."
Peugeot has fitted the filters to the 2L and 2.2L common rail diesels in its 607 since it was launched in 1999 and has since fitted the filters with those engines in the 406, 307 and 807. By 2005, PSA plans to have the filter in all its diesel-powered cars, and it has been awarded a number of environmental prizes in Europe.
European particulate emissions regulations for 2008 will be 0.025 g/km -- and with the filter, the PSA engines emit 0.001 g/km, says a spokeswoman."
In Finland, modern diesel-engines (like TDI from VW) started having problems starting up when temperature dropped to about -30-35c. Before that they had no problems.
The biggest downside to using a Diesel would probably be their acceleration, they tend to be lethargic. (Turbo Diesels deal with that, but would a turbo diesel configured as a hybrid make sense?).
Why wouldn't it make any sense? In fact, VW is doing just that. Their hybrid-solution uses a TDI-engine together with batteries.
performance on diesel-engines is not a problem, partly due that just about all of them are turbodiesels. And even though turbodiesels might have slower 0-60-figures than gasoline-engines do, they are ALOT better at everyday driving. How many of us accelerate from 0 to 60 as fast as possible? How many of us accelerate from (from example) 30 to 50?
I test-drove a Skoda Octavia (closely related to VW Golf) with a TDI-engine. And while the power-output wasn't that great on paper (IIRC, 79Kw), and 0-62mph figures weren't that good (14sec or something like that). It felt REALLY snappy on actual driving. The whole driving-experience was alot smoother, since the engine had such a high torque at it's disposal.
Why is that Christianity is the only religion it is still ok to hate?
Because that is the religion we run in to in our everyday lives. I don't have any people trying to convert me to Islam (for example), but I do see people trying to convert others to Christianity all the time. No, I don't "hate" Christianity as such, I dislike the people who feel compelled to turn me in to Christian. I don't have similar feelings towards people converting others to Islam, since I never see those in here.
The cause of the Crusades was the Islamic Seljuk empire.
The cause of the Crusades was the large number of people in Europe who had nothing to do but to fight each other. So, instead of having them fight each other, why not make them figth the Muslims instead?
Slashdot Mirror
Rather, it's more advanced because
a) Apple has bunch of paid developers doing full-time developement on it. KDE has a bunch of volunteers doing it whenever they have the time
b) Apple can pick and choose the improvements KDE-guys make in their tree and add them to WebCore. KDE-guys can't do the same with WebCore, since all they get is an occasional code-bomb that takes long time to sort out.
Of course the fact that KDE-guys write clean code, instead of coming up with quick hacks (like WebCore-guys seem to be doing) also adds to that.
So the flow of improvements is largely a one-way street, and one tree has lots of paid developers working on it. Is it REALLY one bit surprising that WebCore seems to be moving at a faster pace?
If your games are licenced under the GPL (like most Linux-apps are), then what's the problem with Qt? You could use it just fine.
Yes, the word I used was "hypocritical". Reason being that people like you whined when Qt wasn't free software. And now you whine when they licensed it under the GPL, and that means that it requires you to license your code under the GPL as well. So you guys kept on insisting that Qt must be free software. But when Qt insists (through it's license) that your software must be free software as well, you bitch and moan! Yes, that is hypocrisy in my books! You demand that Trolltech does something, but when they tell you to do the EXACT SAME THING, you whine! What's the matter? Not prepared to eat the same dogfood you dish out?
of course, if you dislike GPL, then that's your problem. Unfortunately most softare on Linux is GPL'ed.
KDE-guys did not complain about Apple as such. They even specificly mentioned that Apple is abiding by the license. what they complained about were the USERS who whined when KHTML took time to incorporate improvements made in WebCore!
Do you "get it" now, or do I have to hit you with a clue-by-four?
Isn't that exactly what the KDE-developers said?? Sheesh!
I for one think that it's great that there are still people out there with a goal to create perfect code, and not just slap features together. It's interesting that Apple chose KHTML because the code was clean, fast and small. And now this guys suggests that KDE abandons those benefits and moves to Webcore (which has lost most of those benefits due to cutting corners and less than perfect code).
Is that it? Crummy code that is "good enough" is the way to go?
Not much of a GPU? it has 10MB of EDRAM, and it has 256GB/sec of bandwidth in to it! That's ALOT of bandwidth. No, it's fucking HUGE amount of bandwidth! And in addition, it has the regural GDDR3 at it's disposal as well.
And it has 48 pipelines running at 500Mhz. Current top of the line PC-GPU's have 16 pipelines running at around 500Mhz. So I think it's pretty safe to say that the GPU on this this is a real monster!
I'm sorry to tell you this, but.... That's the way it works in just about ALL GPL-based software! You can't take GPL'ed software and start selling it in a way Microsoft does for example. And last time I checked, most software on Linux seems to be GPL'ed.
Of course you are free to do as you please. Feel free to NOT use Qt (as you have done). No-one forces you to use it. But I find it rather weird that you whine how Qt pushes it's license on you. Well, that's the way GPL works! If you don't like it, don't use it. If you feel like whining about it, whine to RMS for coming up with such a crappy license! I mean, surely everyone should have the right to profit from other people's work without giving anything back, right?
I don't get it. I just don't. First people whine when Qt is not 100% free software. Then they fix the problem by licensing it under the GPL. And now those people whine that they can't use Qt for free without being limited by GPL! So they want others to write free software for them, as long as they can write non-free software.
I wonder who is "irrational" here? People march around telling that others (in this case, TT) should write free software. And when those people are told to write free software in return, they bitch and moan about it.
"Do as I say! Not as I do!". Just how hypocritical can people be?
Well, those buttons are the apps I use most of the time (I have added a fourth button for Kontact in there since I took the screenshot). And while you might say that it wastes screen-space, I find it ALOT easier to hit those buttons than I could hit some tiny buttons (I tried it, didn't like it). And considering that I still have two rows dedidated to active tasks, together with application-grouping (active if taskbar gets full), I never ever run in to cases where my taskbar gets full.
So while I could save tiny amount of space by using small launch-buttons, the benefits outweight the downsides, IMO. But then again, this is just my way of doing things, other people have different ways for sure.
I fail to see how that could be a good thing. For starters:
a) Apple chose KHTML because the code was lean 'n mean. But Apple has been adding lots of features to WebCore that has sacrificed the "purity" of the code. So the advantage KHTML had over it's rivals (and the reason why Apple chose it in the first place!) has been disappearing in WebCore, and it might be gone already
b) KHTML-guys wanted to work with WebCore-guys, but nothing came out of it. And NOW WebCore-guys are suggesting that KDE dumps KHTML and move to WebCore. How exactly would that work? I mean, Apple wasn't interesting in working with KHTML-guys before, why would they do so now? Would KHTML-devels gain access to Apple's bugtracker? Would they have a shared CVS/Subversion/whatever for their developement? If the answer is "no" (as it has been all this time), then it means that KDE-guys could not do any KHTML/WebCore-developement. They would be at the mercy of Apple. KHTML-guys could just sit on their asses and hope that Apple releases good code.
Apple has clearly shown that they are not that interested in working with KDE-guys. So I find it pretty damn weird to hear them suggesting that KDE dumps KHTML and moves to WebCore. Didn't their past behavior show that they are not interested in working with others? And now KDE should rely on them for HTML-code? I think not!
WebCore and it's developers care about Apple and Safari. They couldn't care less about KDE and Konqueror. So why exactly should KDE rely on them?
KHTML: "Hey Apple, want to work with us a bit better? How about shared mailing-lists and CVS? We are even willing to sign NDA's so we can work with you guys!"
Apple: "Not interested"
KHTML: "OK. Could you at least release manageable patches instead of these huge code-bombs? It would be a nice thing to do and it wouldn't cause any extra problems for you"
Apple: "No. We have no intention of making this easy on you guys. We are fulfilling our legal obligations, but don't expect us to act nice about it"
KHTML: "Fine"
Time passes...
Apple: "Hey guys, wanna dump your HTML-engine and use ours instead? Yes yes, we treated you poorly in the past, but THIS TIME it will be better! Honest! Of course we can't allow you to work on the engine, you just gonna have to trust us to not screw you guys over! As you propably know, big corporations never screw the little-guy!"
Maybe, and it is to be expected. Partly because Apple has paid developers, and partly because the flow of improvements is more or less one-way street. When KHTML-guys made an improvement to KHTML, Apple could easily use it in WebCore. When Apple made improvements to WebCore, KHTML-guys have alot of problems merging that improvement to KHTML. And prior to Safari's launch, KHTML-guys knew nothing about WebCore. While Apple worked on WebCore, they could improve it AND use the improvements created by KHTML-team. But KHTML-guys could not use Apple's improvements.
So you could say that WebCore meant that KHTML got several extra developers (Apple-developers) in addition to existing developers (KHTML-developers). But before Safari was released, the improvements made to WebCore by Apple-devels did not flow back to KHTML, whereas improvements made by KHTML-devels did flow back to WebCore. After Safari was released, KHTML-guys got SOME improvements from WebCore-devels, but the process was difficult (as had been told).
Well, Steve Jobs proclaimed his love for open source during his keynote. And Apples older webpage (thanks to archive.org) about Safari said this:
More truthful comment would have been "Apple does the bare minimium in order to comply with the license of KHTML. We could make it easier for the KDE-guys, but we choose not to do so".
I have the exact opposite feeling. For years people thought that KDE had the better desktop, while Gnome had the better apps. But it seems to me that over the past few years KDE has really catched up as far as apps are concerned.
Before, everyone used XMMS for their music. Then we got Juk and Amarok, both kick-ass apps. Gnome had Evolution for their PIM, while KDE has nothing. Then we got Kontact. CD-Burning? K3B, the best app of it's kind on Linux. Editors? Kate. Konqueror got really good really fast. There's still GIMP, but KDE-folks are working on an alternative, and it shows alot of promise. GAIM used to be the best IM there is. Then we got Kopete. The list goes on and on.
You you seem to make the classic error on your post. Firefox, OpenOffice, Thunderbird and Eclipse etc. are in no shape or form tied to GTK or Gnome. You can use them on KDE just fine.
In short: If you use Qt, you can use GPL or QPL by default. If you want to use another license, you can buy Qt, and license your apps any way you want to.
In other words: "I just used the opportunity to whine about a non-issue. And even if they fixed the problem I have with their toolkit, I still wouldn't use it!". So why whine about Qt/TT then? Obviously they are a complete non-issue to you, so why does it matter to you how they license their toolkit? Or did you just use this as an opportunity to mention "oh, BTW, I hate Qt and KDE"? Well, thanks for your insight!
What you seem to be thinking is that KDE should be different from Windows for the sole reason of being different. If it has some similarities to the way Windows works (all GUI's look more or less similar), it's automatically a bad thing. You don't mention any technical- or usability-reason why Windows is bad, you just think Windows == Bad. Anything that looks vaguely like Windows == Bad. And you fail to mention whether those flaws are still present in KDE. Your point just seems to be "OMG! Windows has [feature X]. And since KDE has [Feature X] as well, it sucks!". Well, Windows has windows, and xfce has windows as well. Clearly xfce sucks!
Yes, there are some similarities between Windows and KDE. There are also similarities between Gnome and KDE. And there are differences between each of them.
Good for you! I tested xfce and I wasn't that exited about it. But it's a good thing that you like it. Choice is a good thing, no?
The screenshots do not show the default desktop, it show how this particular user has set up his desktop. So it merely shows that you can customize KDE to your exact liking. And I don't see how that is a "failing of open source".
FWIW, my KDE-desktop looks like this. Quite a difference, no?
Please: if you want to complain about KDE, do not use some heavily modified desktop as your basis of complaining! The desktop shown on the previous screenshots are NOT what KDE looks like by default! It merely shows what this particular user prefers.
Since Qt is licensed under the GPL since version 2.2 (5 fucking years ago! Hello-oo McFly?!?!?), and is therefore 100% open-source and free, I think we can safely draw the followjng conclusions from your comment:
a) you are a fucking moron who has no idea what he's talking about
and/or
b) You live in a barrel in middle of Siberia, and your access to more or less recent news is somewhat limited.
As a punishment for your moronic drivel, may I suggest that you go sit on an anthill for a while, while you contemplate the reality of the situation?
Yes, my text was harsh, but I'm getting SICK AND TIRED of listening to morons whine how Qt is "closed source" and/or "commercial", when the fact is that it was licensed under the GPL about 5 years ago! So it's not like it happened yesterday and not everyone have had a chance to find out about the license-change. But it was FIVE FUCKING YEARS AGO! Get on with the times or get the fuck out!
I have seen lots of those. And 90% of the time they were NOT used with an iPod. Just because Apple uses white headphones with iPods, does not mean that all white headphones are used with iPods.
Well, you don't really NEED a car at all. In fact, you do not really NEED an apartment/house either! We could live in barracks and eat oatmeal every day and wear convenient overalls. We would survive just fine. We do not really NEED restaurants, supermarkets, houses/apartments, bicycles, computers, libraries, electricity, internet etc. etc.. All we REALLY need is a warm place to stay and some food and water. Anything above that are not really needed.
Is that what you are advocating? No? Then you have some personal beliefs as to what you need and what you do not need? Well, I have my personal beliefs on that matter as well, and they include such things as computers (several in fact), house, car, BBQ, bicycle, television, cell-phone etc.etc.. Who is to say which of us is right and which is not? Apparently e both have personal opinions on this matter.
What is "extravagant" and what is not? Few decades ago having a television might have been considered "extravagant". A bit later color-TV's were "extravagant". Computers were "extravagant" at one point. Who decides what is extravagant and what is not?
Related to this, if people were somehow prevented from buying "extravagant" items, those items would never become normal items for the average Joe. Few years ago flat-screen TV's were expensive and regural folks couldn't afford them. Now they are pretty cheap, and within reach of regural people. Had they be deemed "extravagant" and people were denied from buying them, their developement would have stopped. In the big-picture, we would still be using radios, since televisions would be too "extravagant".
What you are advocating sounds tempting and it's easy to accept (for the poor masses at least). But when you really think about it, it would cause stagnation and lowering standards of living. The problem is that "hey, why not have enough money to live by, and give rest to others?", sounds very good, whereas in reality it wouldn't be as good as it sounds.
How about Philippines then? And even if Africa, it's quite often the missionaries that provide medical care and the like.
Modern diesel-engines made by Peugeot have particulate-filters that cut the amount of particulates in the emissions to similar levels that gasoline-engines have.
link
In Finland, modern diesel-engines (like TDI from VW) started having problems starting up when temperature dropped to about -30-35c. Before that they had no problems.
Why wouldn't it make any sense? In fact, VW is doing just that. Their hybrid-solution uses a TDI-engine together with batteries.
performance on diesel-engines is not a problem, partly due that just about all of them are turbodiesels. And even though turbodiesels might have slower 0-60-figures than gasoline-engines do, they are ALOT better at everyday driving. How many of us accelerate from 0 to 60 as fast as possible? How many of us accelerate from (from example) 30 to 50?
I test-drove a Skoda Octavia (closely related to VW Golf) with a TDI-engine. And while the power-output wasn't that great on paper (IIRC, 79Kw), and 0-62mph figures weren't that good (14sec or something like that). It felt REALLY snappy on actual driving. The whole driving-experience was alot smoother, since the engine had such a high torque at it's disposal.
Because that is the religion we run in to in our everyday lives. I don't have any people trying to convert me to Islam (for example), but I do see people trying to convert others to Christianity all the time. No, I don't "hate" Christianity as such, I dislike the people who feel compelled to turn me in to Christian. I don't have similar feelings towards people converting others to Islam, since I never see those in here.
The cause of the Crusades was the large number of people in Europe who had nothing to do but to fight each other. So, instead of having them fight each other, why not make them figth the Muslims instead?
And having Catholic missionaries preaching against birth-control doesn't really help either.