and in general I think I prefer the look (given the right theme) of the gtk+ toolkit over Qt. I thought you could import Gtk+ themes and engines and use them with Qt, so any Gtk+ theme is available to Qt as a legacy theme, effectively making Qt at least as pretty as Gtk+ to any given person?:)
Re:Just the libraries please
on
KDE 2.2 Tagged
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Much of the "KDE overhead" is the dynamic linking of KDE applications. The number of symbols imported from the libs is enormous, and running KDE seems to reduce this overhead with kdeinit.
Don't use the analogy to Windows, because the similarity to Windows ends with the default (and themable/replacable) looks. You can have 18 desktops in KDE, and I'm not quite sure Afterstep has less overhead than the KDE2 Window manager (KWin).
If you don't like the panel - KDE doesn't require you run it.
If you don't like the window frames - replace the window decorations.
If you don't like the widget set style - change the theme.
KDE runs a bunch of lightweight applications in the background to manage things, and your machine can handle those easily.
BTW: Run some KDE app with stdout/stderr visible, and see if it doesn't spawn a DCOP Server/etc (what you call KDE overhead).. I wonder if you were running apps with the 'KDE Overhead' all the time and never even noticed it:P
Re:KDE 2s2 feature depth is astounding
on
KDE 2.2 Tagged
·
· Score: 1
hmm.. never used Mac/Mac style, but do you mean those rectangles that grow when clicking things? KDE has that:)
The selection is *So Vast* in Linux that a true comparison is more work than playing around with the default installation for a few hours which is all people here have done..
I found most Windows applications to have better Linux counterparts, especially in the KDE suite.
Wrong. XP has less bloat than most Linux distros. It only has 3 text editors instead of 20. One browser instead of 4. One interface instead of 10. One bootloader instead of 2. You may call it choice - but I call it bloat.
This is far more rediculous than anything Johnny said.
Just because somewhere out there on the internet there is a competing editor package for you to download in case you make that choice means its bloat?
Hell, lets say its on some distant disk block in your file system, is that bloat?
Lets all move to dictatorships - in Democracies, all those candidates sure make the government too big! (See the analogy?)
If its too cryptic for you, write a script that randomizes a large number instead of '1', it works and the odds of a collision multiplied by the pain of re-typing the command are very little. You can probably configure it as an icon too.
Anyhow, there is also VNC, which allows attaching it from anywhere, and opening any arbitrary amount of X's easily.
Actually, eventually I think the world will move away from the existing weak ACL/unsafe architectures to much more powerful OS architectures:
- EROS (www.eros-os.org)
And later even to Vapour OS.
These OS's have:
- Much better security, many security properties are even mathamatically provable, unlike the *nix world. Not to mention that using capability systems, they also achieve much better performance AND flexibility in their security systems.
- Properly implemented orthogonal persistence, making those systems much more efficient at disk access. And much simpler to write applications for and manage.
Additional features only in Vapour:
- Vapour is written mainly with safe languages. Not only applications, but the core OS too. Those languages ARE compiled to native code - however this means that the code is safe and will never crash with NO hardware protection!
Actually, Vapour doesn't need processes, because memory separation in such a system is dumb, isntead, Vapour only has threads, which all run with "kernel mode" priveleges, allowing for much better performance at things like thread synchornization and requiring no expensive switches between memory spaces or to kernel mode.
Many many runtime tests of code safety are moved to compile time and performance should increase far more than the impact of using a safe language (it uses a CLISP variant as its core language, and some CLISP compilers are even said to outdo g++ in many benchmarks).
Point is: These systems are SO completely different from existing *nix's and Windows OS's, that I don't see all OS's becoming one, not in the near or distant future.
What could become one, is the GUI, but with so many different tastes around, I don't think so..
This also means Linux, with its better availability of GUI choices, should actually be superior to many people who do not prefer the one Microsoft GUI.
Try KOffice.
It should have all the internationalization you need. In Qt3, it will have right-to-left internationalization support as well.
And it (at least KWord) can import older Microsoft Office files (I think up to Office 97).
Microsoft Office has always been a nightmare for me to use as well, and things indeed break a lot. The features to organize text properly are either very non-trivial or just not existance, because it often breaks things in the worst places (a header from the text, or in the middle of sections, etc).
I couldn't even find any place where I could dictate the breaking policy I'd want.
This reminds me of some of the amazing Debian utilities..
Sure, Debian don't put that much effort into the shininess of the GUI of their tools, but they sure put a lot of good work into them.
Example: Things don't compile.
Debian solution: Run the compilation in the virtualized shell provided by auto-apt. It will open up a dialog asking you whether you want to install packages required for the process (any failed access to a file that can be provided by a package is detected and prompts for the package installation - without losing the file access - if you choose to install, it will SUCCEED in opening the file!).
Since almost all failed compilations are due to failed dependencies, this, along with the source dependencies Debian provides (apt-get build-dep, apt-get source), is the ultimate in dependency resolving for compilations, especially of unpackaged sources.
It seems you have a common disease - assuming Linux has One look, One way, One policy - as you have in Windows.
No, there is no 'general' way distriubtions handle errors and no 'default' graphical mode that distributions always select.
Debian allows me to specify the exact mode I want, and does not even attempt to detect hardware automatically in its current installers (except for [in my experience] flawless detection of PCMCIA devices) - allowing me to specify the exact parameters I want, not risking hardware failures.
Debian will also not default to any stupid modelines, unless you ask it to (Use "Simple" configuration mode - and select the screen size).
I'm not saying Debian does it the right way (I think that although it is a wonderful and great distribution, it has a really crappy installer - fortanatly I deal with it once and forget about it:), but its just an example to the fact there IS NO one Linux policy, way or appearance.
There is no constant of Linux usability.
This plague of ignorance about Linux has spread from ZDNet into the Slashdot crowd, it seems, as almost all Linux-based posts assume that Linux is as usable as Staroffice, Evolution and the Mandrake installer.
XP could always be said to be copying Linux, in the area of stability:)
Now seriously, I've seen many features appear in KDE and Linux before they appeared in Windows.
Win98 with its quick launch bar came after various Linux desktops had small launchers planted on panels.
Optional single-click behaviour was there in KDE first.
The Windows installation process did indeed copy various things from various Linux installers (and vice versa).
Microsoft seem to want to (very poorly) copy apt functionality.
In fact, the Windows 95 GUI is a boosted up Win3.11 GUI (new look for minimize/maximize + kill button, and most of the widget set looks pretty much the same) which was a simple ripoff of Motif, from the *nix world.
Anyhow, Linux is already ready for non-geeks, just don't judge Linux according to any set of bad/unsuitable apps, try both Gnome and KDE before condemning Linux as bad for the desktop.
Try running Konqueror and KOffice, before condemning the 'only available Linux applications' (mozilla and staroffice) as sluggish and bloated.
In summary, Use Linux before you judge it. Not Gnome, Not Staroffice, Not even KDE, Linux - try all apps before deciding none available cut it.
Too bad you don't even have a clue what 'Linux' is.
Obviously you consider Mandrake with a crappy Gnome and Staroffice installation to represent Linux's usability, but there's news for you - unlike Windows - Linux has a choice between various applications. Yes, indeed - you can have more than one application do one thing so you can choose which you like.
Those new firewalls that allow only the Microsoft applications to run smoothly while others are blocked sure represent this policy well.
"One World. One Web. One Program." --
Someone, Somewhere dark
I've had this experience on some machines - and yet I've had much smoother Linux desktops on others - its all up to the hardware you have and which OS supports it better.
nVidia 2d is supported well, as well as TDFX, iirc.
Maybe you should not judge Linux's usability according to what you think about Gnome, and DEFINITELY not according to what you think about *Star Office*.
Maybe you should try a USABLE Desktop, such as KDE, with Konqueror, that already seems to beat Internet Explorer, KOffice - that already seems usable enough for day-to-day work, and yet much lighter and even prettier than MS Office, and redicules Staroffice.
About the GUI being 'ugly', that's just a plain dumb thing to say. The control over how the GUI looks in Gnome, KDE, and pretty much every other GUI/desktop implementation in Linux is much much higher via more powerful theming and more themes available. This, combined with the the subjectiveness of 'beauty', makes all Linux desktops much prettier, and they are indeed:)
Except for running multiple X sessions, you can always use VNC too, which would allow you to continue your X session from anywhere (remotely, locally, etc).
Slashdot posts aren't about social skills.
Everyone is entitled to his oppinion, and an oppinion of a more famous guy, is not necessarily more viable than of a less famous person. He is totally entitled to judge that piece about 10 years as total rubbish, as would I.
I believe both Netscape and Mozilla are crap. However, the much newer Konqueror, is already great software, and without 10 years.
I think that generalizing an arbitrary number like '10 years' for *any* piece of software, is more foolish than anything Ender Ryan wrote here.
Also, I doubt that Quake includes a single line from Doom, let alone Wolfenstein. The 3d architectures were totally changed since, as well as game programming methods.
- Apt has libraries to ease the life of anyone who wants to create front-ends. As a result you have:
- Gnome-apt
- aptitude
- console-apt
- etc. etc. etc
(Check on your facts)
Apt has many front-ends, mostly on the text screen, but 'graphic' and useful.
Debian isn't targetting the average Joe Schmoe, or at least not in its current status.
Windows Update is not even comparable to apt-get, because it only updates a very small subset of the installed software. In Windows, every piece of software has its own code to update itself from the web (Except MS software, perhaps).
Windows Update does not handle libraries upgrades/etc as well as apt-get, because Windows hardly has any package management for installed libraries (apart from that useless registry list of DLL's) at all, not to mention any other shared files/resources.
In summary, Windows Update may be useful to upgrade those 4 or 5 apps you mainly use, but apt-get can upgrade any one of the ~7000 packages you potentially install (Due to conflicts, its actually probably a ~1000 less than that).
Apt-get has libraries allowing easy creation of front-ends, and various ones already exist.
Debian allows you to install some packages from the unstable tree. you DEFINITELY never have to do tarballing.
Just install the unstable one.
If you don't want the "unstable" label, don't use a package that hasn't been tested for many months with 0 problems, because in Debian, only those classify as "Stable".
If you really want to compare to other distributions, you ought to compare Debian's "unstable" tree to their "stable", because it is as stable or even more stable.
Because people don't paritcularly care for those annoying help screens popping up everywhere, and the dependency screens you have to analyze and resolve, etc. etc. etc.
apt-get is much simpler, type in a name of a package or two, or dist-upgrade, and its done, much less work involved, and with -y, absoluotely no annoyances.
According to QM there is no identity.
I.E: If you switch all the ircon atoms in a car with identical iron atoms, it would still be the *SAME* car.
Therefore, there is actually no concept of identity. Destroy something, create it somewhere else, identically, and you actually moved the thing, not created an identical one.
The only systems that would work better than capitalism, rely on modern technology, and other conditions that never existed in the past.
Over the years, this made the popularity of capitalism grow as the only system that works.
But no other system was researched with modern technology in mind, hardly anyone ever gave much thought to creating such ideas, as if it should be trivial. Out of all widely-known ideas, basically just generic socialism, communism, and capitalism, I agree capitalism is best.
My point, however, is that different systems can exist. I agree capitalism is the reason behind a lot of developments in technology, but does this make it any better than the systems this technology allows?
We have the required modern technology with such availability for less than 10 years.
Its reasonable to assume the technology required to automate an entire market should become rediculously cheap in another 10 or 15 years.
Almost all true innovations of regimes/systems were created with new countries. Maybe I shall set up a new country, and see how long the US holds as #1 in anything..:)
Slashdot Mirror
Again, as I said before - Qt can look exactly like any Gtk+ theme via legacy Gtk+ theme support if you want, so I'm not sure your claim has substance.
and in general I think I prefer the look (given the right theme) of the gtk+ toolkit over Qt. :)
I thought you could import Gtk+ themes and engines and use them with Qt, so any Gtk+ theme is available to Qt as a legacy theme, effectively making Qt at least as pretty as Gtk+ to any given person?
Much of the "KDE overhead" is the dynamic linking of KDE applications. The number of symbols imported from the libs is enormous, and running KDE seems to reduce this overhead with kdeinit.
:P
Don't use the analogy to Windows, because the similarity to Windows ends with the default (and themable/replacable) looks. You can have 18 desktops in KDE, and I'm not quite sure Afterstep has less overhead than the KDE2 Window manager (KWin).
If you don't like the panel - KDE doesn't require you run it.
If you don't like the window frames - replace the window decorations.
If you don't like the widget set style - change the theme.
KDE runs a bunch of lightweight applications in the background to manage things, and your machine can handle those easily.
BTW: Run some KDE app with stdout/stderr visible, and see if it doesn't spawn a DCOP Server/etc (what you call KDE overhead).. I wonder if you were running apps with the 'KDE Overhead' all the time and never even noticed it
hmm.. never used Mac/Mac style, but do you mean those rectangles that grow when clicking things? KDE has that :)
The selection is *So Vast* in Linux that a true comparison is more work than playing around with the default installation for a few hours which is all people here have done..
I found most Windows applications to have better Linux counterparts, especially in the KDE suite.
Wrong. XP has less bloat than most Linux distros. It only has 3 text editors instead of 20. One browser instead of 4. One interface instead of 10. One bootloader instead of 2. You may call it choice - but I call it bloat.
This is far more rediculous than anything Johnny said.
Just because somewhere out there on the internet there is a competing editor package for you to download in case you make that choice means its bloat?
Hell, lets say its on some distant disk block in your file system, is that bloat?
Lets all move to dictatorships - in Democracies, all those candidates sure make the government too big! (See the analogy?)
If its too cryptic for you, write a script that randomizes a large number instead of '1', it works and the odds of a collision multiplied by the pain of re-typing the command are very little. You can probably configure it as an icon too.
Anyhow, there is also VNC, which allows attaching it from anywhere, and opening any arbitrary amount of X's easily.
Yet Another Ignorant to judge Linux (YAITJL)..
Actually, eventually I think the world will move away from the existing weak ACL/unsafe architectures to much more powerful OS architectures:
- EROS (www.eros-os.org)
And later even to Vapour OS.
These OS's have:
- Much better security, many security properties are even mathamatically provable, unlike the *nix world. Not to mention that using capability systems, they also achieve much better performance AND flexibility in their security systems.
- Properly implemented orthogonal persistence, making those systems much more efficient at disk access. And much simpler to write applications for and manage.
Additional features only in Vapour:
- Vapour is written mainly with safe languages. Not only applications, but the core OS too. Those languages ARE compiled to native code - however this means that the code is safe and will never crash with NO hardware protection!
Actually, Vapour doesn't need processes, because memory separation in such a system is dumb, isntead, Vapour only has threads, which all run with "kernel mode" priveleges, allowing for much better performance at things like thread synchornization and requiring no expensive switches between memory spaces or to kernel mode.
Many many runtime tests of code safety are moved to compile time and performance should increase far more than the impact of using a safe language (it uses a CLISP variant as its core language, and some CLISP compilers are even said to outdo g++ in many benchmarks).
Point is: These systems are SO completely different from existing *nix's and Windows OS's, that I don't see all OS's becoming one, not in the near or distant future.
What could become one, is the GUI, but with so many different tastes around, I don't think so..
This also means Linux, with its better availability of GUI choices, should actually be superior to many people who do not prefer the one Microsoft GUI.
Try KOffice.
It should have all the internationalization you need. In Qt3, it will have right-to-left internationalization support as well.
And it (at least KWord) can import older Microsoft Office files (I think up to Office 97).
Microsoft Office has always been a nightmare for me to use as well, and things indeed break a lot. The features to organize text properly are either very non-trivial or just not existance, because it often breaks things in the worst places (a header from the text, or in the middle of sections, etc).
I couldn't even find any place where I could dictate the breaking policy I'd want.
-- People using Latex are happier.
This reminds me of some of the amazing Debian utilities..
Sure, Debian don't put that much effort into the shininess of the GUI of their tools, but they sure put a lot of good work into them.
Example: Things don't compile.
Debian solution: Run the compilation in the virtualized shell provided by auto-apt. It will open up a dialog asking you whether you want to install packages required for the process (any failed access to a file that can be provided by a package is detected and prompts for the package installation - without losing the file access - if you choose to install, it will SUCCEED in opening the file!).
Since almost all failed compilations are due to failed dependencies, this, along with the source dependencies Debian provides (apt-get build-dep, apt-get source), is the ultimate in dependency resolving for compilations, especially of unpackaged sources.
It seems you have a common disease - assuming Linux has One look, One way, One policy - as you have in Windows.
:), but its just an example to the fact there IS NO one Linux policy, way or appearance.
No, there is no 'general' way distriubtions handle errors and no 'default' graphical mode that distributions always select.
Debian allows me to specify the exact mode I want, and does not even attempt to detect hardware automatically in its current installers (except for [in my experience] flawless detection of PCMCIA devices) - allowing me to specify the exact parameters I want, not risking hardware failures.
Debian will also not default to any stupid modelines, unless you ask it to (Use "Simple" configuration mode - and select the screen size).
I'm not saying Debian does it the right way (I think that although it is a wonderful and great distribution, it has a really crappy installer - fortanatly I deal with it once and forget about it
There is no constant of Linux usability.
This plague of ignorance about Linux has spread from ZDNet into the Slashdot crowd, it seems, as almost all Linux-based posts assume that Linux is as usable as Staroffice, Evolution and the Mandrake installer.
XP could always be said to be copying Linux, in the area of stability :)
Now seriously, I've seen many features appear in KDE and Linux before they appeared in Windows.
Win98 with its quick launch bar came after various Linux desktops had small launchers planted on panels.
Optional single-click behaviour was there in KDE first.
The Windows installation process did indeed copy various things from various Linux installers (and vice versa).
Microsoft seem to want to (very poorly) copy apt functionality.
In fact, the Windows 95 GUI is a boosted up Win3.11 GUI (new look for minimize/maximize + kill button, and most of the widget set looks pretty much the same) which was a simple ripoff of Motif, from the *nix world.
Anyhow, Linux is already ready for non-geeks, just don't judge Linux according to any set of bad/unsuitable apps, try both Gnome and KDE before condemning Linux as bad for the desktop.
Try running Konqueror and KOffice, before condemning the 'only available Linux applications' (mozilla and staroffice) as sluggish and bloated.
In summary, Use Linux before you judge it. Not Gnome, Not Staroffice, Not even KDE, Linux - try all apps before deciding none available cut it.
Too bad you don't even have a clue what 'Linux' is.
Obviously you consider Mandrake with a crappy Gnome and Staroffice installation to represent Linux's usability, but there's news for you - unlike Windows - Linux has a choice between various applications. Yes, indeed - you can have more than one application do one thing so you can choose which you like.
Those new firewalls that allow only the Microsoft applications to run smoothly while others are blocked sure represent this policy well.
"One World. One Web. One Program." --
Someone, Somewhere dark
I've had this experience on some machines - and yet I've had much smoother Linux desktops on others - its all up to the hardware you have and which OS supports it better.
nVidia 2d is supported well, as well as TDFX, iirc.
Maybe you should not judge Linux's usability according to what you think about Gnome, and DEFINITELY not according to what you think about *Star Office*.
:)
Maybe you should try a USABLE Desktop, such as KDE, with Konqueror, that already seems to beat Internet Explorer, KOffice - that already seems usable enough for day-to-day work, and yet much lighter and even prettier than MS Office, and redicules Staroffice.
About the GUI being 'ugly', that's just a plain dumb thing to say. The control over how the GUI looks in Gnome, KDE, and pretty much every other GUI/desktop implementation in Linux is much much higher via more powerful theming and more themes available. This, combined with the the subjectiveness of 'beauty', makes all Linux desktops much prettier, and they are indeed
Except for running multiple X sessions, you can always use VNC too, which would allow you to continue your X session from anywhere (remotely, locally, etc).
Slashdot posts aren't about social skills.
Everyone is entitled to his oppinion, and an oppinion of a more famous guy, is not necessarily more viable than of a less famous person. He is totally entitled to judge that piece about 10 years as total rubbish, as would I.
I believe both Netscape and Mozilla are crap. However, the much newer Konqueror, is already great software, and without 10 years.
I think that generalizing an arbitrary number like '10 years' for *any* piece of software, is more foolish than anything Ender Ryan wrote here.
Also, I doubt that Quake includes a single line from Doom, let alone Wolfenstein. The 3d architectures were totally changed since, as well as game programming methods.
- Apt has libraries to ease the life of anyone who wants to create front-ends. As a result you have:
- Gnome-apt
- aptitude
- console-apt
- etc. etc. etc
(Check on your facts)
Apt has many front-ends, mostly on the text screen, but 'graphic' and useful.
Debian isn't targetting the average Joe Schmoe, or at least not in its current status.
Windows Update is not even comparable to apt-get, because it only updates a very small subset of the installed software. In Windows, every piece of software has its own code to update itself from the web (Except MS software, perhaps).
Windows Update does not handle libraries upgrades/etc as well as apt-get, because Windows hardly has any package management for installed libraries (apart from that useless registry list of DLL's) at all, not to mention any other shared files/resources.
In summary, Windows Update may be useful to upgrade those 4 or 5 apps you mainly use, but apt-get can upgrade any one of the ~7000 packages you potentially install (Due to conflicts, its actually probably a ~1000 less than that).
Apt-get has libraries allowing easy creation of front-ends, and various ones already exist.
Get a clue.
Debian allows you to install some packages from the unstable tree. you DEFINITELY never have to do tarballing.
Just install the unstable one.
If you don't want the "unstable" label, don't use a package that hasn't been tested for many months with 0 problems, because in Debian, only those classify as "Stable".
If you really want to compare to other distributions, you ought to compare Debian's "unstable" tree to their "stable", because it is as stable or even more stable.
Because people don't paritcularly care for those annoying help screens popping up everywhere, and the dependency screens you have to analyze and resolve, etc. etc. etc. apt-get is much simpler, type in a name of a package or two, or dist-upgrade, and its done, much less work involved, and with -y, absoluotely no annoyances.
Try removing it via:
dpkg --force-depends --remove package
apt-get -f install package
Hope it helps
Bull.
Anything that can be written in mathamatical equations, can be put into words, and that's easily provable.
According to QM there is no identity.
I.E: If you switch all the ircon atoms in a car with identical iron atoms, it would still be the *SAME* car.
Therefore, there is actually no concept of identity. Destroy something, create it somewhere else, identically, and you actually moved the thing, not created an identical one.
That's what QM seems to claim, at least.
Assuming IP addresses truly represent the users they are coming from, that might be possible.
However, since IP addresses are meaningless, with the various forms of tunnelling connections, this whole idea is dubious.
Good luck solving the TSM problem too, Yahoo!
The only systems that would work better than capitalism, rely on modern technology, and other conditions that never existed in the past.
:)
Over the years, this made the popularity of capitalism grow as the only system that works.
But no other system was researched with modern technology in mind, hardly anyone ever gave much thought to creating such ideas, as if it should be trivial. Out of all widely-known ideas, basically just generic socialism, communism, and capitalism, I agree capitalism is best.
My point, however, is that different systems can exist. I agree capitalism is the reason behind a lot of developments in technology, but does this make it any better than the systems this technology allows?
We have the required modern technology with such availability for less than 10 years.
Its reasonable to assume the technology required to automate an entire market should become rediculously cheap in another 10 or 15 years.
Almost all true innovations of regimes/systems were created with new countries. Maybe I shall set up a new country, and see how long the US holds as #1 in anything..