QT and GTK are fundamentally different toolkits, operating on different programming paradigms. Merging them would create a toolkit that is something very different from either one, which essentially means starting from scratch with a new toolkit.
If you mean from a compilation standpoint, why can't GTK apps be linked against QT, and vice versa, this is fundamentally impossible; the apis are very different for both toolkits.
In KDE 2.0 you don't have to keep your pointer over the menu to keep it open. I traversed the screen twice, and I would have done the lambada if I knew how;-).
"I am sure everyone agrees that competition is an ideal that is not as glorious in reality as those sophists make it sound. In reality, competing projects serve only to split a finite resource further."
No, that's not true at all. You __can__ buy support from companies like linuxcare. IBM will support you if you buy their servers with linux on it. So will VALinux. So will HP. So will just about any company that sells machines with Linux.
So support availability isn't really an issue. Further, Solaris is going open source (at least under the SCPL), and I don't hear anything about Sun ending support for customers. Support and open source can happily coexist; the issues aren't related to each other at all. Clearly you don't have much understanding of business models.
Anyway, what's so great about MS's support? Why should I have to pay ridiculous per incident fees for problems with their product (when things fuck up (and they do with MS;-)? I don't see at all what MS offers in this area that's superior. Any other OS (including all Unices (including Linux)) has commercial support available.
Finally, explain how Linux IPOs are all hype? Redhat is expected to be profitable in a year or two. That's a major accomplishment considering the fate of the vast majority of dotcoms. VA Linux is also expected to become profitable soon too. Its revenues are booming; it's hard to say the same thing about pets.com or amazon.com or any number of foo.coms. Linux companies have a lot of promise and it's justified by the cold hard facts: revenue and growth.
If you look at Andover.net's financial disclosure reports, you'll find that Slashdot, which earns revenue through solely ads, is profitable. Therefore the model, if properly executed, can be profitable.
I noticed that Sadistic Yoda is from the University of Kentucky. When I took the entry-level CS class, CS115, my instructor was in fact the president of the LUG on campus. Suffice it to say, g++ was fine with him. In fact, we used it on the student machine, a large HPUX box. I did all of my work on my linux box and received an A. That class really doesn't involve much that would vary from compiler to compiler.
Traditional NIS doesn't provide one of the nice things about NT: NT has a security model, but NIS isn't much of one. Kerberos is an excellent security model and scales well and can be used with distributed filesystems such as AFS and Coda to provide authentication. Also, IPSec would be very nice.
Lots of people said the same thing about going to space and the moon. But look at all of the spinoffs that came from NASA's efforts, like teflon and stronger ceramics and plastics, etc... The developments along the way are just as important as the finished project.
And who changes the world? Secretaries that "have a life"? I think not. In order to do some something remarkable and great, a lot of effort must be expended. I think people are too willing to sit back and let others do the hard work while they "have a life."
Actually, one thing I've noticed is that often the stability of both UIs is often dependent on the distro you're using; I've seen some bad RH distros for both, and some good RH distros for one or the other; the same applies Mandrake, and I'm sure to other distros. I think however, that KDE is a more mature desktop, simply by virtue of its longer existence, and somewhat more stable. However, I think GNOME has great community support in terms of independent app development. A lot of the KDE apps, while good ones, are formal efforts to develop the app, rather than people just working on it. KDE is more directed, but GNOME is a little freer. Each has its advantages and disadvantages, and I think we shouldn't forget that there is no perfect UI, and that there is room for both on the Linux desktop.
You don't have to distribute it as patches; you can distribute a version under a different name, like KDE did for a while during QT 2.1's development. READ THE LICENSE
Ok, they're good and they work 60,70 hour weeks-so what? Does that change the fact that their employer has consistently turned out bad products and FUDed all good products? I think not. MS is still bad no matter who works for it. I'm kind of surprised people with talent and intelligence work for them, instead of for a company that focuses on quality rather than market share. What do MS employees have to say about this?
Chess is what is known as a "perfect information" game; that is, all the necessary information to the solve the game is known, since there are no other events except standard moves and no introduction of new pieces or "information." Therefore, chess is certainly a solvable game, although solving it with brute force is not currently practical.
The GUI has been hailed as one of the greatest advancements towards usability of a computer, but has it really contributed more? Would you rather have a TUI machine that could do tasks like take a letter you've written and send it to all the people in a list that you give the machine with simple voice commmands, or would you rather flashy icons and glitzy themes that don't really accomplish anything? Clearly, linux users have seen that a TUI environment with scripting is much better than a GUI environment anyday. The only problem with the current TUI is that is uses arcane (at least to newbies) commands. I think that the move towards voice recognition and understanding of human language will represent a far greater leap revolution in the use of machines. The god of MIT's computer department, Michael Dertouzos also agrees: Column in TechReview by Dertouzos
Popular Science is the tabloid of science magazines. They just report on what's cool, but never stuff that comes to fruition. For example, they talk about light-speed propulsion and other stuff that's total nonsense right now. They're really not a good source for valid science information and technology.
Do you see Corel working to provide support on other platforms of Linux, such as PowerPC, Alpha, etc...? If so, do you think that opening the source of Corel Office/Corel Linux would aid porting efforts? Or would you prefer to do something like Netscape/Mozilla, releasing a fully functional open source project but creating your own brand of the Office suite/OS? Also, where do you stand on porting the rest of Corel's apps to Linux?
A book, while informative and helpful, is no substitute for practical experience. I know a lot of people who would like to do stuff with a computer, but don't want to take the trouble to sit at a computer and try out what they read in books. They refuse to learn on their own, but instead trust some digested form of another person's (a.k.a. "guru") experience. So newbies really can't just learn by RTFM. They also need to try out that knowledge on a real machine. Who cares if they screw it up? I know that I had to reformat my hard drive the first time I installed linux improperly (of course, I had backups). At least I learned something useful and important. Making mistakes in linux by actually using the machine has taught me a lot more than if I had just read linux for dummies. We should encourage newbies to do the same. We don't want newbies to forever remain newbies, barely ignorant of their computer! We want to make them thoroughly knowledgeable and capable of exploring new environments on their computers without anyone else's help. This is best for newbies, and while it can be painful and time consuming, is infinitely rewarding, both in and of itself, as well as teaching the person something new.
Slashdot Mirror
that looks really cool. first post
QT and GTK are fundamentally different toolkits, operating on different programming paradigms. Merging them would create a toolkit that is something very different from either one, which essentially means starting from scratch with a new toolkit.
If you mean from a compilation standpoint, why can't GTK apps be linked against QT, and vice versa, this is fundamentally impossible; the apis are very different for both toolkits.
In KDE 2.0 you don't have to keep your pointer over the menu to keep it open. I traversed the screen twice, and I would have done the lambada if I knew how ;-).
Here's a ripe one:
"I am sure everyone agrees that competition is an ideal that is not as glorious in reality as those sophists make it sound. In reality, competing projects serve only to split a finite resource further."
Anandtech is running NT. Serves 'em right.
How about let's all stop using IE and Windows and instead use Linux and Konqueror or Mozilla?
No, that's not true at all. You __can__ buy support from companies like linuxcare. IBM will support you if you buy their servers with linux on it. So will VALinux. So will HP. So will just about any company that sells machines with Linux.
;-)? I don't see at all what MS offers in this area that's superior. Any other OS (including all Unices (including Linux)) has commercial support available.
So support availability isn't really an issue. Further, Solaris is going open source (at least under the SCPL), and I don't hear anything about Sun ending support for customers. Support and open source can happily coexist; the issues aren't related to each other at all. Clearly you don't have much understanding of business models.
Anyway, what's so great about MS's support? Why should I have to pay ridiculous per incident fees for problems with their product (when things fuck up (and they do with MS
Finally, explain how Linux IPOs are all hype? Redhat is expected to be profitable in a year or two. That's a major accomplishment considering the fate of the vast majority of dotcoms. VA Linux is also expected to become profitable soon too. Its revenues are booming; it's hard to say the same thing about pets.com or amazon.com or any number of foo.coms. Linux companies have a lot of promise and it's justified by the cold hard facts: revenue and growth.
If you look at Andover.net's financial disclosure reports, you'll find that Slashdot, which earns revenue through solely ads, is profitable. Therefore the model, if properly executed, can be profitable.
I noticed that Sadistic Yoda is from the University of Kentucky. When I took the entry-level CS class, CS115, my instructor was in fact the president of the LUG on campus. Suffice it to say, g++ was fine with him. In fact, we used it on the student machine, a large HPUX box. I did all of my work on my linux box and received an A. That class really doesn't involve much that would vary from compiler to compiler.
Traditional NIS doesn't provide one of the nice things about NT: NT has a security model, but NIS isn't much of one. Kerberos is an excellent security model and scales well and can be used with distributed filesystems such as AFS and Coda to provide authentication. Also, IPSec would be very nice.
Here's a link to the Lars's testimony to the Senate Committee: Lars's testimony.
Lots of people said the same thing about going to space and the moon. But look at all of the spinoffs that came from NASA's efforts, like teflon and stronger ceramics and plastics, etc... The developments along the way are just as important as the finished project.
Ebay does not run BSD. Try using Netcraft and see what you get: IIS on NT.
NT, when it was first started, was a similar example of younger, leaner code, the whole ground up approach :-)
And who changes the world? Secretaries that "have a life"? I think not. In order to do some something remarkable and great, a lot of effort must be expended. I think people are too willing to sit back and let others do the hard work while they "have a life."
Actually, one thing I've noticed is that often the stability of both UIs is often dependent on the distro you're using; I've seen some bad RH distros for both, and some good RH distros for one or the other; the same applies Mandrake, and I'm sure to other distros. I think however, that KDE is a more mature desktop, simply by virtue of its longer existence, and somewhat more stable. However, I think GNOME has great community support in terms of independent app development. A lot of the KDE apps, while good ones, are formal efforts to develop the app, rather than people just working on it. KDE is more directed, but GNOME is a little freer. Each has its advantages and disadvantages, and I think we shouldn't forget that there is no perfect UI, and that there is room for both on the Linux desktop.
You don't have to distribute it as patches; you can distribute a version under a different name, like KDE did for a while during QT 2.1's development. READ THE LICENSE
Ok, they're good and they work 60,70 hour weeks-so what? Does that change the fact that their employer has consistently turned out bad products and FUDed all good products? I think not. MS is still bad no matter who works for it. I'm kind of surprised people with talent and intelligence work for them, instead of for a company that focuses on quality rather than market share. What do MS employees have to say about this?
Chess is what is known as a "perfect information" game; that is, all the necessary information to the solve the game is known, since there are no other events except standard moves and no introduction of new pieces or "information." Therefore, chess is certainly a solvable game, although solving it with brute force is not currently practical.
The GUI has been hailed as one of the greatest advancements towards usability of a computer, but has it really contributed more? Would you rather have a TUI machine that could do tasks like take a letter you've written and send it to all the people in a list that you give the machine with simple voice commmands, or would you rather flashy icons and glitzy themes that don't really accomplish anything? Clearly, linux users have seen that a TUI environment with scripting is much better than a GUI environment anyday. The only problem with the current TUI is that is uses arcane (at least to newbies) commands. I think that the move towards voice recognition and understanding of human language will represent a far greater leap revolution in the use of machines. The god of MIT's computer department, Michael Dertouzos also agrees: Column in TechReview by Dertouzos
Popular Science is the tabloid of science magazines. They just report on what's cool, but never stuff that comes to fruition. For example, they talk about light-speed propulsion and other stuff that's total nonsense right now. They're really not a good source for valid science information and technology.
In the 2.1 developmental series, there were 128 kernels.
Do you see Corel working to provide support on other platforms of Linux, such as PowerPC, Alpha, etc...? If so, do you think that opening the source of Corel Office/Corel Linux would aid porting efforts? Or would you prefer to do something like Netscape/Mozilla, releasing a fully functional open source project but creating your own brand of the Office suite/OS? Also, where do you stand on porting the rest of Corel's apps to Linux?
Next thing you know, they'll create a cheap linux distro for Lego, and have an IPO. Viva linuxone!
A book, while informative and helpful, is no substitute for practical experience. I know a lot of people who would like to do stuff with a computer, but don't want to take the trouble to sit at a computer and try out what they read in books. They refuse to learn on their own, but instead trust some digested form of another person's (a.k.a. "guru") experience. So newbies really can't just learn by RTFM. They also need to try out that knowledge on a real machine. Who cares if they screw it up? I know that I had to reformat my hard drive the first time I installed linux improperly (of course, I had backups). At least I learned something useful and important. Making mistakes in linux by actually using the machine has taught me a lot more than if I had just read linux for dummies. We should encourage newbies to do the same. We don't want newbies to forever remain newbies, barely ignorant of their computer! We want to make them thoroughly knowledgeable and capable of exploring new environments on their computers without anyone else's help. This is best for newbies, and while it can be painful and time consuming, is infinitely rewarding, both in and of itself, as well as teaching the person something new.