If you read the xine docs, you'll see they say something like "don't use esd for output, you'll get A/V sync issues because its latency changes all the time and it doesn't report it properly." They're not mad keen about you using arts for output either, but it's said to work, and does.
GNOME integration is actually a stated aim of the OpenOffice project. KDE integration is a typical "announced, but not actually serious" project
Care to provide a ref? I don't see it anywhere obvious, there doesn't seem to be a gnome integration project, and there's nothing in the main OOo mission statement or about page I can see.
and KDE/QT (as is often the case) rode the coat-tails to a basic Qt version -- not something you'll see KDE/Qt advocates admitting since RedHat is the devil.
Doesn't seem to be "often the case" to me - remember gnome started as a clone/replacement of KDE, not the other way around. KDE does adopt and use gnome technologies when they're superior, and doesn't seem to mind admitting it - isn't it better that they're prepared to integrate, and use the best technology regardless of origin, rather than rejecting anything from "the other people"?
I've never had kmail/kontact crash or lose contacts or (to the best of my knowledge) email. I use it with my imap email fine, though I don't do anything especially complicated.
there couldn't possibly be any other operating systems that don't get viruses making up some of that 16%, could there? Oh no, because there's so many viruses for linux and beos and bsd and os/2....
I meant the survey that was featured on slashdot. If you have what you see as a better one, by all means post it.
Is gnome actually using gstreamer for everything now? If so that's a place gnome is ahead, but last I saw they were relying on the steaming unmaintained pile of bugs that is ESD, which noone outside of gnome bothers to support because it's horrendous to do so (can't even get constant and reported latency). Wheras the near-unmaintained pile of bugs that is arts actually works, and is useable by non-kde applications. (e.g. xine)
Why do I see abiword and gnumeric being referred to as "gnome office" then? And there is a kde integration effort for OOo too.
OK, I was fishing for something quick to say here, but why can't you access the different bits of evolution as separate programs if they're done as bonobo controls? You see kparts everywhere in kde, but I've never once seen anything like that being used in gnome.
What have you had problems with with kdepim? What can't it do?
People review the patchsets and use them to see what they're going to change. You don't write code straight from the patchsets, but you do go through the patchsets before you change something, seeing what they are and what they are doing, so you can check you're not introducing regressions if nothing else. I can see the other side though.
You can still make it bootable. You need to use the -N option to mkisofs (or equivalent) since the loader can't find the kernel on a standards-compliant iso9660 filesystem, but other than that it's a pretty normal bootable cd.
The EULA has no legal validity. As long as you don't violate the copyright (which you aren't, since the copy is transitory and for personal use only) or breaking any other laws, you can do what you like with the CD you own.
The preferred form means what they use when they change the source themselves. If they really work on the big source tarball that's fine, just as if they really code it in assembly then releasing that is fine. But if they work using the VCS and the comments and patchsets in there are important for modifying the code, then that's what they should be distributing.
The guideline is "what you use yourself to modify the program". If apple honestly uses just the raw sources and monolithic patchsets when they do their webcore development, what they're doing is fine, but I'll bet they don't, they use their SCM to track what changes are happening where.
As for the second part, apple is allowed to charge what it costs them to distribute the sources.
To me, the GPL means getting what the person themself used to modify and create that binary. I wouldn't be happy with autogenerated source, for example like you get from qt designer, I'd want the file they used to generate it from. Similarly, if there's important information in the CVS log that helps you understand the code and makes modifying it much easier, I want access to that.
Sure, you can choose to do that, just like you can choose to open your mp3s in vi to try and see the sound instead of using a program designed to play them. You're just an idiot.
Usually the install program shows you what it's detected as part of the install process. Anyway, the existence of distros like that and mepis seem to me to be more of an argument against trying to install knoppix to hd - you can use distros which were designed to do that.
Anything in the GPL that hints that you should release patches in small digestible chunks?
Yes, there's the bit that says you have to release "in the preferred form for making modifications", and it is implied in the preamble that is what you use yourself to modify it. I very much doubt the huge monolithic patchsets are what apple devs use internally, far more likely they use their VCS tree complete with comments. So that's what they should release.
The license says you must make available the "work in the preferred form for making modifications". KDE has said they would like separated patchsets (apple just gives them a huge unified diff of a whole month or so's changes, without showing what goes with what) and logs from the version control system (so they have a better idea what change does what). Apple has refused to provide either.
Yeah, that's why kde has over twice the popularity of gnome in the recent survey, had remote desktop 2 major versions before, has integrated zeroconf already, has a sound system that for all its faults actually works, has a complete office suite rather than a word processor and spreadsheet trying to be one, has a proper pim system where you can use the bits you need separately or combined...
I got modded down as a troll last time I said something like this, so let me say that gnome has its advantages too and it's wrong to say either of them is dead.
There could be an issue. The license says the code has to be made available "in the preferred form for making modifications". The monolithic patches apple gives are not very nice to work with, it could be argued that smaller patchsets are this preferred form.
Slashdot Mirror
GNOME integration is actually a stated aim of the OpenOffice project. KDE integration is a typical "announced, but not actually serious" project
Care to provide a ref? I don't see it anywhere obvious, there doesn't seem to be a gnome integration project, and there's nothing in the main OOo mission statement or about page I can see.
and KDE/QT (as is often the case) rode the coat-tails to a basic Qt version -- not something you'll see KDE/Qt advocates admitting since RedHat is the devil.
Doesn't seem to be "often the case" to me - remember gnome started as a clone/replacement of KDE, not the other way around. KDE does adopt and use gnome technologies when they're superior, and doesn't seem to mind admitting it - isn't it better that they're prepared to integrate, and use the best technology regardless of origin, rather than rejecting anything from "the other people"?
I've never had kmail/kontact crash or lose contacts or (to the best of my knowledge) email. I use it with my imap email fine, though I don't do anything especially complicated.
That's crap. My motherboard (FIC AZ11EA) is at least 4 years old (because that's when I got it) and supports AGP 4x fine.
There is no such thing as a true static binary on linux. But yes, it could work. It would be so big it would get rejected by most mailservers though.
Apple doesn't license it to anyone
Give it to me :)
It's wider than standard 16:9 or 4:3
Keep sticking your head in the sand and pretending it's not happening. Of course it will go away if you ignore it long enough.
If they can't separate it (release a branch or something) then those bits of safari are based on open source code.
I don't assume they use decent comments, but I do assume they use some form of comments. So far they haven't released any.
Uh, yes. I bought the cd. It wasn't sold as a license, it was sold as a cd. I own the cd.
there couldn't possibly be any other operating systems that don't get viruses making up some of that 16%, could there? Oh no, because there's so many viruses for linux and beos and bsd and os/2....
Is gnome actually using gstreamer for everything now? If so that's a place gnome is ahead, but last I saw they were relying on the steaming unmaintained pile of bugs that is ESD, which noone outside of gnome bothers to support because it's horrendous to do so (can't even get constant and reported latency). Wheras the near-unmaintained pile of bugs that is arts actually works, and is useable by non-kde applications. (e.g. xine)
Why do I see abiword and gnumeric being referred to as "gnome office" then? And there is a kde integration effort for OOo too.
OK, I was fishing for something quick to say here, but why can't you access the different bits of evolution as separate programs if they're done as bonobo controls? You see kparts everywhere in kde, but I've never once seen anything like that being used in gnome.
What have you had problems with with kdepim? What can't it do?
People review the patchsets and use them to see what they're going to change. You don't write code straight from the patchsets, but you do go through the patchsets before you change something, seeing what they are and what they are doing, so you can check you're not introducing regressions if nothing else. I can see the other side though.
You can still make it bootable. You need to use the -N option to mkisofs (or equivalent) since the loader can't find the kernel on a standards-compliant iso9660 filesystem, but other than that it's a pretty normal bootable cd.
The EULA has no legal validity. As long as you don't violate the copyright (which you aren't, since the copy is transitory and for personal use only) or breaking any other laws, you can do what you like with the CD you own.
/spends far too much time on the internet
The preferred form means what they use when they change the source themselves. If they really work on the big source tarball that's fine, just as if they really code it in assembly then releasing that is fine. But if they work using the VCS and the comments and patchsets in there are important for modifying the code, then that's what they should be distributing.
As for the second part, apple is allowed to charge what it costs them to distribute the sources.
To me, the GPL means getting what the person themself used to modify and create that binary. I wouldn't be happy with autogenerated source, for example like you get from qt designer, I'd want the file they used to generate it from. Similarly, if there's important information in the CVS log that helps you understand the code and makes modifying it much easier, I want access to that.
Sure, you can choose to do that, just like you can choose to open your mp3s in vi to try and see the sound instead of using a program designed to play them. You're just an idiot.
Usually the install program shows you what it's detected as part of the install process. Anyway, the existence of distros like that and mepis seem to me to be more of an argument against trying to install knoppix to hd - you can use distros which were designed to do that.
Yes, there's the bit that says you have to release "in the preferred form for making modifications", and it is implied in the preamble that is what you use yourself to modify it. I very much doubt the huge monolithic patchsets are what apple devs use internally, far more likely they use their VCS tree complete with comments. So that's what they should release.
The license says you must make available the "work in the preferred form for making modifications". KDE has said they would like separated patchsets (apple just gives them a huge unified diff of a whole month or so's changes, without showing what goes with what) and logs from the version control system (so they have a better idea what change does what). Apple has refused to provide either.
I got modded down as a troll last time I said something like this, so let me say that gnome has its advantages too and it's wrong to say either of them is dead.
The lgpl says the work "in the preferred form for making modifications". This is assumed to just be the source code, but isn't necessarily
There could be an issue. The license says the code has to be made available "in the preferred form for making modifications". The monolithic patches apple gives are not very nice to work with, it could be argued that smaller patchsets are this preferred form.