Some of them did, maybe. But large part of the people in Dresden were refugees that were fleeing the advancing Red Army. they certainly weren't working in factories.
but, as we all know, Hitler was an idiot (military and otherwise).
This might not be Politically Correct, but.... Hitler was certainly not an idiot. Yes, in the later stages of the war he was a deranged lunatic (due to large part the fact that his personal doctor, Dr. Morell pumped him full of drugs. In the morning he was given stimulants, in the evening he was given sleeping-pills. Every day), but before the war and in the early half of the war he was really cunning and smart. Hell, he managed to annex Austria and Czechoslovakia (spelling?) without firing a shot. He re-armed Germany, rebuilt the nation, annihilated the Versailles Treaty, conquered France (even though his generals though it would be suicide) and ALMOST annihilated Soviet Union.
Add to that that he was propably the greatest speaker the world has ever seen... To say that he was "an idiot" is pretty ignorant IMO.
Like what? GPL makes it really hard to abuse Linux (or more presicely, users of Linux). Like I said, I just can't see Linux turning in to another Microsoft. Yes, Linux could achieve complete market-dominance some time in the future. But the very nature of Linux makes it EXTREMELY difficult to abuse that dominance.
Come talk to me when you can play strategy-games on a console (like Combat Mission, Europa Universalis etc.). Or how about Flight-simulators (Falcon 4.0, Lock On, etc.)? Nowhere to be seen on consoles. Online games are only just now taking off on consoles, but PC's still dominate there.
Consoles are great for some type of games, but they absolutely suck for other types of games.
But what if these distributors like Red Hat "develop" Linux to the extent that it outdoes every single other Linux distro on the market (because of the availability of capital, which seems to be the argument you're using - more money = better development?)? Then, it would seem, customers are effectively locked in to one particular system even though it is theoretically open and free for anyone to change (most users won't bother).
If one distro wins by simply being superior to everyone else, then I fail to see how that could be considered bad. And there would be nothing stopping you (or anyone else for that matter) from creating your own version of their distro (or creating one from scratch) and competing with them with your own version. It has happened several times in the past (like when Mandrake was created from Red Hat).
And having money DOES help developement. For example, Red Hat (or some other company) could hire full-time kernel-hackers that would have more time (and better equipment) at their disposal, instead of if they hacked only in their free time.
Hopefully it won't be all bad, but I'm worried that Linux will just turn into another Microsoft (obviously with open source, but still)...
Linux cannot become another Microsoft. Microsoft is about monopoly prices, lock-in, proprietary technologies etc. etc. None of those are possible with Linux. If Linux gained 100% market-share, there would still be several distros competing (and several free versions of Linux), the core-systems would be open and free, so moving between different vendors would be easy. And you could fork your own version from existing distros (for example Red Hat ==> Mandrake, Gentoo ==> Zynot)
You mentioned Red Hat trying to make a profit. How would that affect Linux? Easy: Red Hat would have even more money to spend improving Linux.
There seems to be a lot of different interpretations of Linus' views of the future of Linux floating around. There was a recent post on/. entitled "Linus says 2004 is the year of the Linux Desktop" or something like that. That seems to be a bit of a conflict with this article.
Not at all. Basically, he thinks that in 2004 Linux will really take on in the desktop-market. But that wouldn't mean that Linux would be mainstream in the desktop-market. Let's assume that number of Linux-users doubles in 2004, and that's due to increase in desktop-use. That would give Linx a market-share of around 5%. If that happened, 2004 would be the "year of the desktop" for Linux, but being mainstream would still be several years in the future.
But continuing each projects separetedly wont make one desktop become better faster.
Yes it does. One desktop invents something cool that the others hasn't thought about, so the other desktop implements it as well. For example: some hacked came up with an app called Karamba (later SuperKaramba) for KDE. Gnome didn't have anything like that, but soon after Karamba was relesed, GNOME got their equivalent: Gdesklets. So you can see how improvement in KDE directly resulted in improvement in GNOME.
Both desktops come up with stuff that the other desktop hadn't though about. The developers of the other desktop look at the stuff in their competitor and think "now, why didn't we think of that?", they then proceed to implement it on their desktop. That is a healthy competition that benefits both.
Choosing between KDE and GNOME really is a personal judgement. Some of us prefer KDE's look & feel, while others prefer GNOME's. Some of us like tweakability, whereas others prefer more streamlined operation. KDE works for me, but I can easily understand why some would choose GNOME. For me, KDE works better, for others GNOME works better. For other, it's Fluxbox of XFCE. And some prefer CLI instead of GUI. It's all a matter of personal preference.
You talk of mathematical formulas to decide which desktop is better. Sorry, but it doesn't quite work that way. We are humans, not robots.
My bet goes on Gnome because it has better backing by Debian, Novell and Redhat.
To me it seems that Debian has been getting alot more KDE-friendly recently (joint KDE/Debian-projects for example). But how exactly is Debian more GNOME-friendly? To me it seems that both desktops get equal treatment in Debian. Red Hat is getting less relevant, since they are not interested in regural users, they aim at servers and enterprise. We'll have to wait and see how Fedora handles KDE/GNOME.
Of course, KDE has the backing of Mandrake, Xandros, Lindows, SUSE (we'll have to see how the Novell-thingy works out), Lycoris, Conectiva etc. etc., so I wouldn't count them out that easily. And, of course, Linus uses KDE as well;).
Thanks a lot! I actually burst out laughing when I read that. My girlfriend wanted to see what I was laughing at. After seeing your post, her comment to me was "Gee, you ARE boring!"
Exactly. Let's look at the facts, shall we? Chernoby was (is) old Soviet-desgn reactor. Those reactors do have a risk of catastrophic failure (like Chernobyl) it can NOT happen in moder western-type reactors (had similar thing happen in a western reactor that happened in Chernobyl, the reactor would shut down. No fire, no explosion, the reactor would shut down). Also, the technicians in Chernobyl basically did everything they could in order to blow the thing up. They removed the control-rods, they accelerated the reaction etc. etc. They did everything they were NOT supped to do!
Only thing that Chernobyl proved was that yes, if you design a reactor in some certain way, and yes, if you try REALLY HARD, you might be able to cause a disaster. No, that does not mean that all nuclear reactor are dangerous, far far from it!
More realistic comparison would be Kontact - Evolution.
kwrite - abiword
I guess you mean Kword - Abiword?
konqueror - epiphany
I prefer Konqueror. How well does Epiphany handle filemanagament? Now very well eh? That's what I thought...
kcontrol - gnome control center
I think Kcontrol is superior. It lets me tweak the desktop EXACTLY the way I want to.
in every case gnome or gtk software was more polished in interface, more directed to its usage and simpler to use
Maye GNOME is more gung-ho when it comes to simplicity of use. But they do that at the expense of configurability. Sorry, but I prefer KDE's approach. And I have exactly ZERO problems with KDE and it's ease of use. Just because you can tweak it as much as you want does not mean that it's hard to use.
There seems to be ALOT more commercial Qt-apps than there are commercial GTK+-apps. I honestly can't remember even one commercial GTK+-app, but I can remember lots of commercial Qt-apps.
Evolution - I can't remember any serious KDE mail client sorry (please no kmail)
What makes email-client "serious"? What makes Evolution "serious", whereas Kmail is not? And of course, there is Kontact.
OpenOffice.org - Now native GTK planned for next release, KDE release, well project is open but no one want's to do it
To my knowledge, serious progress has already been made there. I saw an announcement about it in dot.kde.org.
GIMP isn't really a GNOME-app AFAIK. Yes, it uses GTK+, no that does not make it in to a GNOME-app. And there are LOTS and LOTS of kick-ass KDE-apps (for example Konqueror, Kmail, Kdevelop, Quanta, K3B etc. etc.), so your claim that "GNOME-apps rule, KDE-apps suck!" is just plain ignorant.
MP3.com is a full-fledged business, and any admin who deploys a half-developed filesystem on mission-critical systems should be fired. I'm not saying that ReiserFS v4 is half-developed now, but at one time it was.
Obviously they did not use V4, they used V3! V4 is still in beta, V3 has been widely used for quite some time already.
Having read your previous posts I STRONGLY supsect that you would be screaming blue murder if a Slashdot story had started by describing Gnome as the leading desktop environment.
No I wouldn't. Reason being that I think that GNOME IS "leading" desktop environment. Of the two (KDE and GNOME) I prefer KDE, but I still think GNOME is "leading", just as KDE is.
The reason I suspect this is because you come across as a hypocrit on this issue
What makes you ASSume that? Because I prefer KDE over GNOME?
I find the whining about the comment to be childish. Every single company and/or ogranisation claims to be "the best" or "leading" in their respective field. What do you suggest they should do? Say something like "Company XXXX, the mediocre company producing YYYYY".
And the fact is that KDE IS the "leading" desktop on several fronts. They were the first real desktop environment, and that alone makes them "leading". They propably have the largest userbase, and the technology behind the desktop is considerably ahead that of GNOME's (their closest rival).
Your info is WRONG! 89W is the figure AMD told to MoBo-makers as a guideline. As in "design your MoBo's in such way that they can handle CPU's that generate 89W of power". The actual figure for A64/Opteron is way below that number!
89W is the worst-case scenario for the future. From what I have gathered, the real number for A64/FX51 is something like 50-60W. And if the CPU-load is low, the CPU automatically underclocks itself (all the way down to 800Mhz). I have heard of people who run their A64's with the fan on the heatsink being dead-still!
But the Qt Free Edition isn't available for any platform other than Unix/Linux; which means your GPL-licensed application has to use the non-GPL-licensed versions of Qt if you plan to port it to Mac OS X or Windows.
Well, you can't really use GNOME on Windows or Mac either. And to my knowledge, GTK+'s Windows-support isn't that good. No-one with a half a brain would use GTK+ to do Windows-developement! Can you name any Windows-app (besides GIMP) that uses GTK+? So your argument is pointless.
It seems that developers rather develop for Windows with commercial Qt than free GTK+.
And Trolltech would prefer....
So? Of course they would like it if people bought their product. But they can't stop people using the GPL'ed version, assuming they agree with the license.
The target audience for this distribution is businesses who want to roll out in-house software. They want 1 desktop, 1 toolkit and if possible no licensing costs. GNOME/GTK fits the bill.
And you can write closed-source in-house apps with for free qith Qt just fine! GPL allows that! And most companies do NOT write software, they use software, yes, but they don't write software.
Funny that the KDE developers' argument boils down to: "We have these proposed applications, most of them aren't finished yet, or haven't even been started, but they're going to be really great and integrate well with an enterprise desktop, so you should choose KDE and ditch Gnome."
Thing is, Gnome has the applications NOW, already integrated and complying to a well tested Human Interface Guide.
So, does GNOME have Kiosk-framework? You know, the absolutely needed thing for corporate deployments? KDE has it, has had it for a while now. KDE has just about all the stuff you could need. If it lacks something, it will propably be in 3.2, which is released early next year.
Slashdot Mirror
Some of them did, maybe. But large part of the people in Dresden were refugees that were fleeing the advancing Red Army. they certainly weren't working in factories.
This might not be Politically Correct, but.... Hitler was certainly not an idiot. Yes, in the later stages of the war he was a deranged lunatic (due to large part the fact that his personal doctor, Dr. Morell pumped him full of drugs. In the morning he was given stimulants, in the evening he was given sleeping-pills. Every day), but before the war and in the early half of the war he was really cunning and smart. Hell, he managed to annex Austria and Czechoslovakia (spelling?) without firing a shot. He re-armed Germany, rebuilt the nation, annihilated the Versailles Treaty, conquered France (even though his generals though it would be suicide) and ALMOST annihilated Soviet Union.
Add to that that he was propably the greatest speaker the world has ever seen... To say that he was "an idiot" is pretty ignorant IMO.
I wouldn't call it "peanuts" really. Maybe more people died in Tokyo (I'm not sure though), but that does not make Dresden "peanuts".
Like what? GPL makes it really hard to abuse Linux (or more presicely, users of Linux). Like I said, I just can't see Linux turning in to another Microsoft. Yes, Linux could achieve complete market-dominance some time in the future. But the very nature of Linux makes it EXTREMELY difficult to abuse that dominance.
Come talk to me when you can play strategy-games on a console (like Combat Mission, Europa Universalis etc.). Or how about Flight-simulators (Falcon 4.0, Lock On, etc.)? Nowhere to be seen on consoles. Online games are only just now taking off on consoles, but PC's still dominate there.
Consoles are great for some type of games, but they absolutely suck for other types of games.
If one distro wins by simply being superior to everyone else, then I fail to see how that could be considered bad. And there would be nothing stopping you (or anyone else for that matter) from creating your own version of their distro (or creating one from scratch) and competing with them with your own version. It has happened several times in the past (like when Mandrake was created from Red Hat).
And having money DOES help developement. For example, Red Hat (or some other company) could hire full-time kernel-hackers that would have more time (and better equipment) at their disposal, instead of if they hacked only in their free time.
Linux cannot become another Microsoft. Microsoft is about monopoly prices, lock-in, proprietary technologies etc. etc. None of those are possible with Linux. If Linux gained 100% market-share, there would still be several distros competing (and several free versions of Linux), the core-systems would be open and free, so moving between different vendors would be easy. And you could fork your own version from existing distros (for example Red Hat ==> Mandrake, Gentoo ==> Zynot)
You mentioned Red Hat trying to make a profit. How would that affect Linux? Easy: Red Hat would have even more money to spend improving Linux.
Not at all. Basically, he thinks that in 2004 Linux will really take on in the desktop-market. But that wouldn't mean that Linux would be mainstream in the desktop-market. Let's assume that number of Linux-users doubles in 2004, and that's due to increase in desktop-use. That would give Linx a market-share of around 5%. If that happened, 2004 would be the "year of the desktop" for Linux, but being mainstream would still be several years in the future.
Yes it does. One desktop invents something cool that the others hasn't thought about, so the other desktop implements it as well. For example: some hacked came up with an app called Karamba (later SuperKaramba) for KDE. Gnome didn't have anything like that, but soon after Karamba was relesed, GNOME got their equivalent: Gdesklets. So you can see how improvement in KDE directly resulted in improvement in GNOME.
Both desktops come up with stuff that the other desktop hadn't though about. The developers of the other desktop look at the stuff in their competitor and think "now, why didn't we think of that?", they then proceed to implement it on their desktop. That is a healthy competition that benefits both.
Choosing between KDE and GNOME really is a personal judgement. Some of us prefer KDE's look & feel, while others prefer GNOME's. Some of us like tweakability, whereas others prefer more streamlined operation. KDE works for me, but I can easily understand why some would choose GNOME. For me, KDE works better, for others GNOME works better. For other, it's Fluxbox of XFCE. And some prefer CLI instead of GUI. It's all a matter of personal preference.
You talk of mathematical formulas to decide which desktop is better. Sorry, but it doesn't quite work that way. We are humans, not robots.
To me it seems that Debian has been getting alot more KDE-friendly recently (joint KDE/Debian-projects for example). But how exactly is Debian more GNOME-friendly? To me it seems that both desktops get equal treatment in Debian. Red Hat is getting less relevant, since they are not interested in regural users, they aim at servers and enterprise. We'll have to wait and see how Fedora handles KDE/GNOME.
Of course, KDE has the backing of Mandrake, Xandros, Lindows, SUSE (we'll have to see how the Novell-thingy works out), Lycoris, Conectiva etc. etc., so I wouldn't count them out that easily. And, of course, Linus uses KDE as well
Thanks a lot! I actually burst out laughing when I read that. My girlfriend wanted to see what I was laughing at. After seeing your post, her comment to me was "Gee, you ARE boring!"
Exactly. Let's look at the facts, shall we? Chernoby was (is) old Soviet-desgn reactor. Those reactors do have a risk of catastrophic failure (like Chernobyl) it can NOT happen in moder western-type reactors (had similar thing happen in a western reactor that happened in Chernobyl, the reactor would shut down. No fire, no explosion, the reactor would shut down). Also, the technicians in Chernobyl basically did everything they could in order to blow the thing up. They removed the control-rods, they accelerated the reaction etc. etc. They did everything they were NOT supped to do!
Only thing that Chernobyl proved was that yes, if you design a reactor in some certain way, and yes, if you try REALLY HARD, you might be able to cause a disaster. No, that does not mean that all nuclear reactor are dangerous, far far from it!
More realistic comparison would be Kontact - Evolution.
I guess you mean Kword - Abiword?
I prefer Konqueror. How well does Epiphany handle filemanagament? Now very well eh? That's what I thought...
I think Kcontrol is superior. It lets me tweak the desktop EXACTLY the way I want to.
Maye GNOME is more gung-ho when it comes to simplicity of use. But they do that at the expense of configurability. Sorry, but I prefer KDE's approach. And I have exactly ZERO problems with KDE and it's ease of use. Just because you can tweak it as much as you want does not mean that it's hard to use.
There seems to be ALOT more commercial Qt-apps than there are commercial GTK+-apps. I honestly can't remember even one commercial GTK+-app, but I can remember lots of commercial Qt-apps.
What makes email-client "serious"? What makes Evolution "serious", whereas Kmail is not? And of course, there is Kontact.
To my knowledge, serious progress has already been made there. I saw an announcement about it in dot.kde.org.
GIMP isn't really a GNOME-app AFAIK. Yes, it uses GTK+, no that does not make it in to a GNOME-app. And there are LOTS and LOTS of kick-ass KDE-apps (for example Konqueror, Kmail, Kdevelop, Quanta, K3B etc. etc.), so your claim that "GNOME-apps rule, KDE-apps suck!" is just plain ignorant.
Just about all those patches have been in the -mm kernel for a long time. They have been tested and then tested some more.
Obviously they did not use V4, they used V3! V4 is still in beta, V3 has been widely used for quite some time already.
Windowmaker is not a Desktop Environment. It's more like a windowmanager.
Uh, Xeon IS 32bit CPU. Opteron/Athlon64 is 64bits. and the "bitness" of G5 is pretty irrelevant, since it's running on a 32bit OS.
No I wouldn't. Reason being that I think that GNOME IS "leading" desktop environment. Of the two (KDE and GNOME) I prefer KDE, but I still think GNOME is "leading", just as KDE is.
What makes you ASSume that? Because I prefer KDE over GNOME?
I find the whining about the comment to be childish. Every single company and/or ogranisation claims to be "the best" or "leading" in their respective field. What do you suggest they should do? Say something like "Company XXXX, the mediocre company producing YYYYY".
And the fact is that KDE IS the "leading" desktop on several fronts. They were the first real desktop environment, and that alone makes them "leading". They propably have the largest userbase, and the technology behind the desktop is considerably ahead that of GNOME's (their closest rival).
Your info is WRONG! 89W is the figure AMD told to MoBo-makers as a guideline. As in "design your MoBo's in such way that they can handle CPU's that generate 89W of power". The actual figure for A64/Opteron is way below that number!
89W is the worst-case scenario for the future. From what I have gathered, the real number for A64/FX51 is something like 50-60W. And if the CPU-load is low, the CPU automatically underclocks itself (all the way down to 800Mhz). I have heard of people who run their A64's with the fan on the heatsink being dead-still!
Well, you can't really use GNOME on Windows or Mac either. And to my knowledge, GTK+'s Windows-support isn't that good. No-one with a half a brain would use GTK+ to do Windows-developement! Can you name any Windows-app (besides GIMP) that uses GTK+? So your argument is pointless.
It seems that developers rather develop for Windows with commercial Qt than free GTK+.
So? Of course they would like it if people bought their product. But they can't stop people using the GPL'ed version, assuming they agree with the license.
And you can write closed-source in-house apps with for free qith Qt just fine! GPL allows that! And most companies do NOT write software, they use software, yes, but they don't write software.
So, does GNOME have Kiosk-framework? You know, the absolutely needed thing for corporate deployments? KDE has it, has had it for a while now. KDE has just about all the stuff you could need. If it lacks something, it will propably be in 3.2, which is released early next year.