The reason some people complain about open source on proprietary systems is the software requires those systems to be present. This is equivalent to OpenOffice.org requiring Sun's Java binaries rather than GCC's, say. Thus, the argument to be made is equivalent to the one made by Richard Stallman in Free But Shackled - The Java Trap.
Currently we run on most UNIX systems, Windows 95 and later, QNX Neutrino 6.2. We also have a MacOS X native port in the way (you can still use the UNIX version on MacOS X if you want). There used to be a BeOS port, but that version has been unmaintained for too long to consider it as still alive.
Gnome is hard to compile because the libraries are developed by very different groups of people. In KDE, everything (besides Qt) is made from scratch, so the kdelibs source has ALL the libraries. But in Gnome, you have to install the libraries for xml, wnck, gtk, vte, eel, gal, gconf, etc.
Why is this better? Because a different project, not necessarily associated with Gnome, can use these libraries, and not really require Gnome (recall XFCE). Whereas with KDE's approach, if you want to use a feature some KDE program uses, you'll need to use kdelibs, which means you are a KDE program, exclusively.
The problem with worrying about this is whatever conclusions are made depend on the song in question being silent; such as, "Well, if the song is silent, then DRM doesn't apply."
This is like working with sets in math and debating over what happens if the set is empty. In nearly all theorems involving sets, the set is assumed to be non-empty. Whatever may come of it being empty is likely to be meaningless.
Despite the breezy tone, however, the effort is apparently not as offhand as one might think. In a move that seems out of character with the informality of blogging, Google edited itself in a Monday note about the Mountain View, Calif., company's recent expansion to Bangalore, India. In an earlier, more lighthearted version of the posting, Google said too much has been made out of U.S. companies outsourcing jobs in India. A later version of the note, posted Tuesday without identifying the changes, takes a less opinionated tone over what is a topic of heated political debate.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason some people complain about open source on proprietary systems is the software requires those systems to be present. This is equivalent to OpenOffice.org requiring Sun's Java binaries rather than GCC's, say. Thus, the argument to be made is equivalent to the one made by Richard Stallman in Free But Shackled - The Java Trap.
They're out there, but as with anything good, you can't just let it come to you through the mass distribution channels. You have to try.
from: About Abiword
try "tilda". here: http://freshmeat.net/projects/tilda/
Gnome is hard to compile because the libraries are developed by very different groups of people. In KDE, everything (besides Qt) is made from scratch, so the kdelibs source has ALL the libraries. But in Gnome, you have to install the libraries for xml, wnck, gtk, vte, eel, gal, gconf, etc.
Why is this better? Because a different project, not necessarily associated with Gnome, can use these libraries, and not really require Gnome (recall XFCE). Whereas with KDE's approach, if you want to use a feature some KDE program uses, you'll need to use kdelibs, which means you are a KDE program, exclusively.
The problem with worrying about this is whatever conclusions are made depend on the song in question being silent; such as, "Well, if the song is silent, then DRM doesn't apply."
This is like working with sets in math and debating over what happens if the set is empty. In nearly all theorems involving sets, the set is assumed to be non-empty. Whatever may come of it being empty is likely to be meaningless.
From News.com
and I wouldn't put it past them to make two version 1 releases (1 1 2 3 5...)