Evolution has a splash screen. One with loading icons! Kontact is an aplication that compares to Evolution in features. So, if you don't know what you're saying, why bother saying it? (Also, as a side note, Kontact with all it's Kparts is a lot less in source code numbers than Evolution - just a short comparison between KDE and Gnome frameworks - remember, less code means less bugs)
I think you are wrong. From my experience KDE 3.1.4 is faster than Gnome 2.4 (on Mandrake 9.2) on an Athlon 1.2 Gb with 750 Mb RAM, running 8 different X sessions (multi-user environment, with X terminals) at the same time, also running OpenOffice. So, obviously, you think you know what you're talking, but you don't.
My understanding of Bruce's goal is that UserLinux will be the one distribution that all comercial software and hardware makers will chose as a point of reference. I fear a future in which all comercial developers will only support UserLinux. I believe this is what the KDE developers fear also. (I am actualy very interested of this problems, I have followed the entire issue very close since it's started as I feel that this will affect me and everybody who loves Linux and/or KDE)
It goes something like this:
We are open-source idealists. So why should we choose the lesser GPL over the real GPL? We should promote GPL over closed source, don't we? It seems to me that the UserLinux idea is built with the idea that companies would not pay for comercial Qt licences. But, theKompany uses it comercially, Borland had Kylix built on Qt, Opera on Linux is built with Qt, etc. Clearly, those companies chose the better toolkit by paying for it. Of course, it makes more sense to have a free toolkit for your closed source software, but only when it's not something really big, like the above examples.
Also, it makes some sence that, if you make money with it, you should pay for it.
What I don't understand is why dump the really good KDE for a not so good (IMHO) Gnome just because of toolkits. Making GTK work better with QT is a lot easier (again, IMHO) than replacing KDE. My answer to the UserLinux proposal is: use KDE as desktop, support Gnome also and improve interoperability (freedesktop is already a common direction for that). By the time UserLinux actualy sees the light of day, I believe interoperability will be better betwen toolkits, anyway.
From my experience, people will prefer KDE over GNOME (I don't know what you're talking about the beauty of GNOME, yes, so it's streamlined - that in my experience, is lack of options - but is ugly, not customizable, it's file manager is anything but usefull to real work, it's applications are not so good and it is slooow...
And let me explain my experience. A year ago (I used RedHat 8) i installed in my organization (a non-profit one, 10 computer seats) an LTSP server. The users had no previous experience in Linux and not that much experience with Windows anyway (they're just users, they don't go about configuring anything). When asked to make a choice, they choose KDE. Over the relative slow network (a switched 100Mbit network, with realy low hardware for X stations - P2-266 and 64Mb Ram, and a not so great server - Athlon 1,2 Ghz) KDE 3.1 runs a lot faster than GNOME (quite smooth, actualy), feels integrated, Konqueror rules (they use it for file management and web browsing), kmail is just right to them, it has integrated image and PDF viewer, very easy printing with preview, and, once again, I repeat, QT runs faster than GTK, XUL and VCL (I wish kde.openoffice.org would finish the integration very soon, it's just what we need). Also, I don't know why everyone is complaining about Kcontrol, it's a non-issue here. After I showed them how to use it and where to start, they're quite comfortable with changing settings (mostly visuals - icons, backgrounds, window decorations and styles).
And, because I'm a web developer, I can use Quanta and KDE's transparent network integration to work over fish on the webserver, running, of course, under WindowMaker
Slashdot Mirror
I use getmail, fetchmail's replacement written in python. I am 99% sure (without checking) that fetchmail is written in C.
Evolution has a splash screen. One with loading icons! Kontact is an aplication that compares to Evolution in features. So, if you don't know what you're saying, why bother saying it? (Also, as a side note, Kontact with all it's Kparts is a lot less in source code numbers than Evolution - just a short comparison between KDE and Gnome frameworks - remember, less code means less bugs)
Portuguese is a Latin language :)
42 - the Ultimate Answer to Life, the Universe and Everything :) or something like that, for further details, read Hitchhiker's Guide
I think you are wrong. From my experience KDE 3.1.4 is faster than Gnome 2.4 (on Mandrake 9.2) on an Athlon 1.2 Gb with 750 Mb RAM, running 8 different X sessions (multi-user environment, with X terminals) at the same time, also running OpenOffice. So, obviously, you think you know what you're talking, but you don't.
You know, i speak and undestand realy good English, considering that is a foreign language for me.
KDE loosing popularity, its developers, its support from comercial sponsors.
My understanding of Bruce's goal is that UserLinux will be the one distribution that all comercial software and hardware makers will chose as a point of reference. I fear a future in which all comercial developers will only support UserLinux. I believe this is what the KDE developers fear also. (I am actualy very interested of this problems, I have followed the entire issue very close since it's started as I feel that this will affect me and everybody who loves Linux and/or KDE)
It goes something like this:
We are open-source idealists. So why should we choose the lesser GPL over the real GPL? We should promote GPL over closed source, don't we? It seems to me that the UserLinux idea is built with the idea that companies would not pay for comercial Qt licences. But, theKompany uses it comercially, Borland had Kylix built on Qt, Opera on Linux is built with Qt, etc. Clearly, those companies chose the better toolkit by paying for it. Of course, it makes more sense to have a free toolkit for your closed source software, but only when it's not something really big, like the above examples.
Also, it makes some sence that, if you make money with it, you should pay for it.
What I don't understand is why dump the really good KDE for a not so good (IMHO) Gnome just because of toolkits. Making GTK work better with QT is a lot easier (again, IMHO) than replacing KDE. My answer to the UserLinux proposal is: use KDE as desktop, support Gnome also and improve interoperability (freedesktop is already a common direction for that). By the time UserLinux actualy sees the light of day, I believe interoperability will be better betwen toolkits, anyway.
This is absolutely true.
From my experience, people will prefer KDE over GNOME (I don't know what you're talking about the beauty of GNOME, yes, so it's streamlined - that in my experience, is lack of options - but is ugly, not customizable, it's file manager is anything but usefull to real work, it's applications are not so good and it is slooow...
And let me explain my experience. A year ago (I used RedHat 8) i installed in my organization (a non-profit one, 10 computer seats) an LTSP server. The users had no previous experience in Linux and not that much experience with Windows anyway (they're just users, they don't go about configuring anything). When asked to make a choice, they choose KDE. Over the relative slow network (a switched 100Mbit network, with realy low hardware for X stations - P2-266 and 64Mb Ram, and a not so great server - Athlon 1,2 Ghz) KDE 3.1 runs a lot faster than GNOME (quite smooth, actualy), feels integrated, Konqueror rules (they use it for file management and web browsing), kmail is just right to them, it has integrated image and PDF viewer, very easy printing with preview, and, once again, I repeat, QT runs faster than GTK, XUL and VCL (I wish kde.openoffice.org would finish the integration very soon, it's just what we need). Also, I don't know why everyone is complaining about Kcontrol, it's a non-issue here. After I showed them how to use it and where to start, they're quite comfortable with changing settings (mostly visuals - icons, backgrounds, window decorations and styles).
And, because I'm a web developer, I can use Quanta and KDE's transparent network integration to work over fish on the webserver, running, of course, under WindowMaker