Is it uncompromising idealism or is it uncompromising egotism hiding behind idealism. There's a difference. And more and more, I find myself feeling that he is hurting more than helping his nominal cause.
>"I hope not. But how can I know for sure? I've >got an ego like everyone else. I'm sure my ego >wants me to be more famous. I don't know."
Well, it's not like everyone else's. It's much bigger. I appreciate what he's done for the open-source/free-software community but it's only a part of Linux/Free-Software. What is important here, the credit or the code?
Icons are one area where htey could cooperate
on
QPL 1.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
KDE's icons didn't really look that great until beta4 or 1.0. After that they looked really sharp. Gnome could do with using those although there is a size difference. I agree about the huge controls. The icons could do with being 2/3 - 1/2 the size. Icon and panel size needs to be configurable.
Isn't RedHat's yearly study due out this month? I while back I heard that they had put out a suggested preliminary figure of 12 million and said that the final estimate could be as high as 15 million. "Sizing the Linux Market" is a paper on the redhat site about the 1997 year end figure.
The first release I like well enough to switch
on
GNOME 1.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
I have been following gnome off and on up through the first "cow" release. 1.0 is really cleaned up. The annoying little bugs I noticed before are gone. With a little configuration, I even like "E", and I never expected to say that. If I were basing my decision solely on how I like the interface, I would stay with KDE, but although KDE is great and QT is pretty free now, I prefer to use gnome and GTK+. However, I won't put up with a lot of inconvenience on my desktop just for the sake of that. With this release, It looks good enough to me. For a newbie fresh out of windows, I'd suggest KDE. If his machine was low memory, I'd feel good suggesting Gnome. Thanks to everyone on both teams; the two desktops complement each other well and together are better for Linux than either alone.
Can the panel be made smaller? It's HUGE, even at 1280x1024. I like it OK with just the "main" menu, a small clock and all the rest task bar. The panel can be used to replace the desktop icons of KDE but then I lose taskbar real estate. A second panel (You can do that, you know;) ) solves that problem but them a major part of the screen is taken up. This is not a rant. I appreciate all the work that has gone into Gnome and look forward to seeing it's progress.
Seriously, what are some situations in which FreeBSD is a better choice than Linux? I have a mixed systemV'ish background and have found Linux to far outshine any of the SV based OS's I've used. I have limited experience with the BSD variants. I do have some recent BSDi experience and find that I like Linux better than that in many ways.
Touche'. Good point. I do use glibc and that had not occurred to me.;-)
The way I look at it, though, is "what's really important, the software or the credit?" If it's the software, there's no need to clamor for attention. If it's the credit, then it undermines the whole premise of the movement. Again, I should say that GNU has been invaluable to the cause and still is. I don't want to trash GNU. But I don't think anyone should be bullied into paying tribute. We are members of the same team and team mates don't act that way. I fervently hope that Linux can avoid the fragmentation that has plagued UNIX over all these years. If I thought that calling Linux GNU/Linux would help matters I would do it, but the important thing is *sharing the same goals*, not placating individual desires for getting the credit. Without a common cause, our cause is lost and I'm not ready to give that up.
Thanks for the observation on shared libraries.
And everyone, please, let's try to work together for a common cause, as much as is humanly possible. (And, yes, "humanly possible" is a *very real* limitation.;-) )
-Steve
P.S. Thanks to everyone who has contributed to free/open-source software.
I'm much more concerned about junk snail mail than easily trashed spam. I don't want to give up any rights to fight this minor annoyance. Further, much of the beauty of the net is it's relative freedom from governmental intervention. It can't stay that way forever but let's not hasten the end of it's "Golden Age".
Do a "ps ax" and note what is running on your machine "right now". I do that periodically and note that usually the *only* GNU software running is bash which could be replaced by zsh or something else. I appreciate GNU and there is more GNU stuff on the system than what is running at any one time, but to give GNU special credit and leave out all those other authors is unfair. The *Linux* kernel is central to the OS and is always running and I see no reason to complicate matters for old users, new users, and the general populace with GNU/Linux. Again, I appreciate the importance of GNU in the history of free/open-source software but enough is enough.
After all these years, I finally find out what that rod does aside from scaring the bird. That was a tremendous game. I didn't realize that you could bypass so much and still get "Grand Master" status.
OK, you can organize one. Non-conformity is, well, non-conformity. I admire the "I'm myself and I don't really care what you think" attitudes that Linux luminaries tend to have. If you are not happy with the appearance of people who represent us, then become a representative. Don't whine about the people who take the trouble to do so.
I understand what you are saying. If I had my 'druthers', I'd 'ruther' have everyone [in the Linux community] look as conservative as Linus, but it's not my place to criticize the people who have contibuted so much *more* to a cause that I believe in than I have been able or willing to do. It's what each person has contributed that counts. I believe that the "Scruffy-Beards" are 'correlational' with the contribution.
Not a flame, just a heart-felt observation;-) , -Steve Bergman steve@netplus.net
I'm waiting for ELKS to be bootable on my palmtop. *Really*. (HP 200LX) Why, because it would be cool to be able to do it.
-Steve
What kind of grout should I use for the keyboard?
on
Water Cooling a CPU
·
· Score: 1
The subject says it all. What kind of grout works best? Should I use the regular white kind, or can I use the kind with the little dark speckles in it which is easier to clean. I can't wait to see what my K6-2 can really do!
The PPRO lived as long as it did because of it's scalability; not because of the performance of a single chip config. I don't see it as a failure. I see it as a real "workhorse" chip that held it's own long after faster single processors were available due to it's scalability in SMP configurations. Xeon changes that. Until Xeon, the fastest SMP machines were PPRO.
Well, In "Bread And Circuses" Spock mentions an add for the "Jupiter 8" (an automobile, presumably). So it looks like Jupiter may be out, too. (At least in the Star Trek universe.:-) Oh, Well...)
Intelligent, unemotional discussion of KDE v Gnome
on
Gnome 0.99.7 released
·
· Score: 1
Hi,
Everyone, please resist turning this thread into a flame war. We need to stand together as a community, not degenerate into infighting; "A house divided cannot stand" and all that sort of rot.;-) For all the flames I have seen with respect to KDE and Gnome I have seen *remarkably* repeat, **remarkably**, little debate over the relative technical merits and *potentials* of both. I'm not a KDE or Gnome guru. but I'll start off with my own perceptions:
0. I should start off setting the context for my comments. I find KDE more usable at this point but for the long run I hope Gnome turns out to be the winner but I'm torn for a number of reasons. I am going to throw out points I consider important more or less randomly. Please, please, please respond in as constructive a way as possible. (Thanks.;-) )
1. To me, KDE looks *much* more polished at this point.
2. Gnome has not been around as long and will no doubt get better.
3. Although I fervently believe in choice when it comes to apps like wordprocessors, spreadsheets. etc. I strongly believe that the less technical end user should only have to "learn Linux" once. To the new non-technical user, the interace *is* the OS. I believe that for the good of Linux, only one interface should be dominant.
4. That said, competition is good. On the other hand duplication of effort is not necessarily good.
5. KDE looks and feels much like Windows. As much as I despise WinXX, I have to admit that the UI itself is unparalleled. This is my strong *opinion*. I believe that we should not "throw out the baby with the bath water" by discounting anything "windows" out of hand. That way lies vulnerability for any strengths that windows may have (for all it's weaknesses) is forever denied to us. Looking like windows is not in and of itself bad. On the other hand, if one doesn't like the UI then the criticism is (locally) valid.
6. Gnome seems to go for flashy and neat stuff. KDE seems more professional. I have never been able to deal well with Enlightenment. It seems to give up functionality and ease of use in favor of a sort of bizzare flash. KWM seems (to me) very no nonsense, direct, intuitive, and functional.
7. KDE seems more integrated. I like the fact that kpanel handles the (excelent) task bar and that the task bar can grow so large. I like the desktop icons. (E's desktop icons always and other accessories just seem to be in the way and I turn them off.) Gnomes components overlap each other and generally don't seem to "know about" each other. Gnome's taskbar seems quite limited in comparison to KDE's, especially with lots of apps running. (Yes, I know I'm coming down hard on Gnome and E but just wait...;-) )
8. KDE's memory requirement is embarrasing. Nobody involved with KDE ever seems to even care about that. I *cannot* set up a low memory 486 system built out of "junk parts" for friends using KDE which is sad because those are the very friends that could benefit most from KDE! Memory usgage may be KDE's greatest weakness.
9. Gnome has lower memory requirements by a long shot. As I understand it, ORBit is much more efficient than MICO and that MICO was originally written as an educational tool and nothing more. (Don't assume I know what I'm talking about here, about MICO. I just *heard* this. I don't know that for sure.)
10. I get the impression that the Gnome team has started at a lower level, building a foundation of ORBit, etc. which will pay off in the long run, whereas KDE picked available tools a jumped right into coding the GUI. This is not a criticism of KDE. If KDE were not here, we would not have anything finished and ready right now or over the last year or two and Linux/Unix would not be in as good a shape. (The two projects may be complememtary in that way.) I'm interested in (*constructive*) comments about the quality of the relative foundations.
11. From what I understand KDE and QT pretty much constrict the developer to C++. Now aside from the relative merits of C, C++, and other languages, I notice that compared to C expertise, C++ expertise is relatively scarce which has bearing on the size of the future developer community.
12. QT had a very problematic license. The first draft of QPL was troublesome. (That whole business of "patches only".) Current QPL seems more palletable, though not GPL or LGPL.
13. Development of GTK is very impotant to the OSS initiative.
14. Finally. RedHat, for better or worse, is currently the most influential Linux distributor. I like RedHat, myself. I think that RedHat had the best of intentions in throwing such support behind the Gnome project. I wish Trolltech had changed their minds a long time ago. If they had, we wouldn't have this conflict. If they had stayed with their old license, I think that Gnome would eventually have just phased itself in and KDE would be phased out. Now it just looks like a big division for a long time.
15. Be careful how you interpret the last paragraph. I'm not pro or con RedHat's support of Gnome, or more accurately, I'm not sure if I'm pro *or* con. I'm just the sort of person who likes to know what to expect... to have a plan.
-Steve
P.S. Where's the spellchecker?;-)
Screaming AFTER release (re:compile then talk)
on
Linux 2.2.1
·
· Score: 1
The original poster has a point. We are the last link in the kernel development cycle. If we don't test and report bugs, they are not going to be caught as quickly. As with any product, OSS or not, *.*.0 is at least a bit iffy. If you can't afford to take any chances, wait a while. If you can then by all means *test* and *report*. Note to the original poster: You don't have to be part of some elite crowd to have a valid opinion. If you run into any problems compiling 2.2.1 let me know; I'd be glad to help. Instructions are in your RH5.2 manual if you have the boxed set.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it uncompromising idealism or is it uncompromising egotism hiding behind idealism. There's a difference. And more and more, I find myself feeling that he is hurting more than helping his nominal cause.
-Steve Bergman
>"I hope not. But how can I know for sure? I've
>got an ego like everyone else. I'm sure my ego >wants me to be more famous. I don't know."
Well, it's not like everyone else's. It's much bigger. I appreciate what he's done for the open-source/free-software community but it's only a part of Linux/Free-Software. What is important here, the credit or the code?
KDE's icons didn't really look that great until beta4 or 1.0. After that they looked really sharp. Gnome could do with using those although there is a size difference. I agree about the huge controls. The icons could do with being 2/3 - 1/2 the size. Icon and panel size needs to be configurable.
-Steve
It doesn't work when invoked intentionally. ;-)
-Steve
Isn't RedHat's yearly study due out this month? I while back I heard that they had put out a suggested preliminary figure of 12 million and said that the final estimate could be as high as 15 million. "Sizing the Linux Market" is a paper on the redhat site about the 1997 year end figure.
I have been following gnome off and on up through the first "cow" release. 1.0 is really cleaned up. The annoying little bugs I noticed before are gone. With a little configuration, I even like "E", and I never expected to say that. If I were basing my decision solely on how I like the interface, I would stay with KDE, but although KDE is great and QT is pretty free now, I prefer to use gnome and GTK+. However, I won't put up with a lot of inconvenience on my desktop just for the sake of that. With this release, It looks good enough to me. For a newbie fresh out of windows, I'd suggest KDE. If his machine was low memory, I'd feel good suggesting Gnome. Thanks to everyone on both teams; the two desktops complement each other well and together are better for Linux than either alone.
Can the panel be made smaller? It's HUGE, even at 1280x1024. I like it OK with just the "main" menu, a small clock and all the rest task bar. The panel can be used to replace the desktop icons of KDE but then I lose taskbar real estate. A second panel (You can do that, you know ;) ) solves that problem but them a major part of the screen is taken up. This is not a rant. I appreciate all the work that has gone into Gnome and look forward to seeing it's progress.
-Steve Bergman
Seriously, what are some situations in which FreeBSD is a better choice than Linux? I have a mixed systemV'ish background and have found Linux to far outshine any of the SV based OS's I've used. I have limited experience with the BSD variants. I do have some recent BSDi experience and find that I like Linux better than that in many ways.
Thanks,
Steve
Can you supply concrete documentation on any of this, or is this just a 1:00am thing?
Touche'. Good point. I do use glibc and that had not occurred to me. ;-)
;-) )
The way I look at it, though, is "what's really important, the software or the credit?" If it's the software, there's no need to clamor for attention. If it's the credit, then it undermines the whole premise of the movement. Again, I should say that GNU has been invaluable to the cause and still is. I don't want to trash GNU. But I don't think anyone should be bullied into paying tribute. We are members of the same team and team mates don't act that way. I fervently hope that Linux can avoid the fragmentation that has plagued UNIX over all these years. If I thought that calling Linux GNU/Linux would help matters I would do it, but the important thing is *sharing the same goals*, not placating individual desires for getting the credit. Without a common cause, our cause is lost and I'm not ready to give that up.
Thanks for the observation on shared libraries.
And everyone, please, let's try to work together for a common cause, as much as is humanly possible. (And, yes, "humanly possible" is a *very real* limitation.
-Steve
P.S. Thanks to everyone who has contributed to free/open-source software.
I'm much more concerned about junk snail mail than easily trashed spam. I don't want to give up any rights to fight this minor annoyance. Further, much of the beauty of the net is it's relative freedom from governmental intervention. It can't stay that way forever but let's not hasten the end of it's "Golden Age".
-Steve
Do a "ps ax" and note what is running on your machine "right now". I do that periodically and note that usually the *only* GNU software running is bash which could be replaced by zsh or something else. I appreciate GNU and there is more GNU stuff on the system than what is running at any one time, but to give GNU special credit and leave out all those other authors is unfair. The *Linux* kernel is central to the OS and is always running and I see no reason to complicate matters for old users, new users, and the general populace with GNU/Linux. Again, I appreciate the importance of GNU in the history of free/open-source software but enough is enough.
What is it about "ergonomic" keyboards that makes them better? It has never occurred to me to replace my keyboard for "ergonomic" reasons...
-Steve
After all these years, I finally find out what that rod does aside from scaring the bird. That was a tremendous game. I didn't realize that you could bypass so much and still get "Grand Master" status.
-Steve
OK, you can organize one. Non-conformity is, well, non-conformity. I admire the "I'm myself and I don't really care what you think" attitudes that Linux luminaries tend to have. If you are not happy with the appearance of people who represent us, then become a representative. Don't whine about the people who take the trouble to do so.
;-) ,
I understand what you are saying. If I had my 'druthers', I'd 'ruther' have everyone [in the Linux community] look as conservative as Linus, but it's not my place to criticize the people who have contibuted so much *more* to a cause that I believe in than I have been able or willing to do.
It's what each person has contributed that counts. I believe that the "Scruffy-Beards" are 'correlational' with the contribution.
Not a flame, just a heart-felt observation
-Steve Bergman
steve@netplus.net
I'm waiting for ELKS to be bootable on my palmtop. *Really*. (HP 200LX) Why, because it would be cool to be able to do it.
-Steve
The subject says it all. What kind of grout works best? Should I use the regular white kind, or can I use the kind with the little dark speckles in it which is easier to clean. I can't wait to see what my K6-2 can really do!
Thanks,
Steve
The PPRO lived as long as it did because of it's scalability; not because of the performance of a single chip config. I don't see it as a failure. I see it as a real "workhorse" chip that held it's own long after faster single processors were available due to it's scalability in SMP configurations. Xeon changes that. Until Xeon, the fastest SMP machines were PPRO.
-Steve
Well, In "Bread And Circuses" Spock mentions an add for the "Jupiter 8" (an automobile, presumably). So it looks like Jupiter may be out, too. (At least in the Star Trek universe. :-) Oh, Well...)
Hi,
;-) For all the flames I have seen with respect to KDE and Gnome I have seen *remarkably* repeat, **remarkably**, little debate over the relative technical merits and *potentials* of both. I'm not a KDE or Gnome guru. but I'll start off with my own perceptions:
;-) )
;-) )
;-)
Everyone, please resist turning this thread into a flame war. We need to stand together as a community, not degenerate into infighting; "A house divided cannot stand" and all that sort of rot.
0. I should start off setting the context for my comments. I find KDE more usable at this point but for the long run I hope Gnome turns out to be the winner but I'm torn for a number of reasons. I am going to throw out points I consider important more or less randomly. Please, please, please respond in as constructive a way as possible. (Thanks.
1. To me, KDE looks *much* more polished at this point.
2. Gnome has not been around as long and will no doubt get better.
3. Although I fervently believe in choice when it comes to apps like wordprocessors, spreadsheets. etc. I strongly believe that the less technical end user should only have to "learn Linux" once. To the new non-technical user, the interace *is* the OS. I believe that for the good of Linux, only one interface should be dominant.
4. That said, competition is good. On the other hand duplication of effort is not necessarily good.
5. KDE looks and feels much like Windows. As much as I despise WinXX, I have to admit that the UI itself is unparalleled. This is my strong *opinion*. I believe that we should not "throw out the baby with the bath water" by discounting anything "windows" out of hand. That way lies vulnerability for any strengths that windows may have (for all it's weaknesses) is forever denied to us. Looking like windows is not in and of itself bad. On the other hand, if one doesn't like the UI then the criticism is (locally) valid.
6. Gnome seems to go for flashy and neat stuff. KDE seems more professional. I have never been able to deal well with Enlightenment. It seems to give up functionality and ease of use in favor of a sort of bizzare flash. KWM seems (to me) very no nonsense, direct, intuitive, and functional.
7. KDE seems more integrated. I like the fact that kpanel handles the (excelent) task bar and that the task bar can grow so large. I like the desktop icons. (E's desktop icons always and other accessories just seem to be in the way and I turn them off.) Gnomes components overlap each other and generally don't seem to "know about" each other. Gnome's taskbar seems quite limited in comparison to KDE's, especially with lots of apps running. (Yes, I know I'm coming down hard on Gnome and E but just wait...
8. KDE's memory requirement is embarrasing. Nobody involved with KDE ever seems to even care about that. I *cannot* set up a low memory 486 system built out of "junk parts" for friends using KDE which is sad because those are the very friends that could benefit most from KDE! Memory usgage may be KDE's greatest weakness.
9. Gnome has lower memory requirements by a long shot. As I understand it, ORBit is much more efficient than MICO and that MICO was originally written as an educational tool and nothing more. (Don't assume I know what I'm talking about here, about MICO. I just *heard* this. I don't know that for sure.)
10. I get the impression that the Gnome team has started at a lower level, building a foundation of ORBit, etc. which will pay off in the long run, whereas KDE picked available tools a jumped right into coding the GUI. This is not a criticism of KDE. If KDE were not here, we would not have anything finished and ready right now or over the last year or two and Linux/Unix would not be in as good a shape. (The two projects may be complememtary in that way.) I'm interested in (*constructive*) comments about the quality of the relative foundations.
11. From what I understand KDE and QT pretty much constrict the developer to C++. Now aside from the relative merits of C, C++, and other languages, I notice that compared to C expertise, C++ expertise is relatively scarce which has bearing on the size of the future developer community.
12. QT had a very problematic license. The first draft of QPL was troublesome. (That whole business of "patches only".) Current QPL seems more palletable, though not GPL or LGPL.
13. Development of GTK is very impotant to the OSS initiative.
14. Finally. RedHat, for better or worse, is currently the most influential Linux distributor. I like RedHat, myself. I think that RedHat had the best of intentions in throwing such support behind the Gnome project. I wish Trolltech had changed their minds a long time ago. If they had, we wouldn't have this conflict. If they had stayed with their old license, I think that Gnome would eventually have just phased itself in and KDE would be phased out. Now it just looks like a big division for a long time.
15. Be careful how you interpret the last paragraph. I'm not pro or con RedHat's support of Gnome, or more accurately, I'm not sure if I'm pro *or* con. I'm just the sort of person who likes to know what to expect... to have a plan.
-Steve
P.S. Where's the spellchecker?
The original poster has a point. We are the last link in the kernel development cycle. If we don't test and report bugs, they are not going to be caught as quickly. As with any product, OSS or not, *.*.0 is at least a bit iffy. If you can't afford to take any chances, wait a while. If you can then by all means *test* and *report*. Note to the original poster: You don't have to be part of some elite crowd to have a valid opinion. If you run into any problems compiling 2.2.1 let me know; I'd be glad to help. Instructions are in your RH5.2 manual if you have the boxed set.
-Steve Bergman
steve@netplus.net