Gnomelibs are currently going out the window to break compatibility. They're going to design a new gnomelibs for Gnome 3.0
A test case would perhaps to port a Gnome app to QT and kdelibs to showcase using all the KDE features like Solid, Phonon, kioslaves, etc. There is even something similiar to GnomeVFS I do believe now.
It would be great if every major app on my Linux desktop could use all these features.
The new gnomelibs could be designed to use many of these features and borrow from kdelibs.
The KDE 4.0 icon fiasco is going out the window. In KDE 4.1, you have a folder view applet on your desktop that operates largely like a file manager window. You can change the folder it views, and even filter it with smart searches, and Nepomuk meta-data.
I hate having the applet on my desktop, but in the future supposedly it will be the desktop, and support themeing/wallpapers, etc.
There are many great advantages of KDE, such as platform independence and SVG rendering like you mentioned.
Again, I suggested the problem isn't the features.
As for making KDE 4 operate or look like OS X or Vista, that depends how much control we have over the interface. My fear/concern is that given recent discussions and posts with Aaron suggest we will have less control.
I know people will think I'm crazy, but I have a vision for kGnome.
QT 4 actually has a Clearlooks engine designed to look like Gnome. Dolphin can be configured to operate largely like Natilus (except it works better these days).
If QT 4 actully really does use less memory and runs faster, why not do a test and port a small Gnome app or two over to QT 4?
The app can run with the QT 4 Clearlooks engine, and look largely like Gnome apps, except they can take advantage of many of the KDE features like Phonon, Solid, Sonnet, etc.
As for the people who prefer C to C++, aren't there language bindings for both for QT and GTK?
I'd love to see just a few small apps as a proof of concept. It could demonstrate the feasibility of a Gnome desktop built upon QT, especially considering the annoucement of Gnome 3, and the decision to break API.
If you're going to build anew, shouldn't this concept at least be considered for a moment? Both projects can have their seperate apps, desktops, defaults, window decorations, features, etc. But more common libraries and toolkits are a win for everyone.
The problem with KDE 4 has nothing to do with features of stability, but the transparency of the project.
Many of the nicer features like Solid, Phonon, Sonnet, Akondi, etc. aren't visible. Plasma is extremely visible. It affects the users directly.
Yet no one knows what the long term design plans ffor Plasma are. The users keep getting surprised, and they feel that Plasma over-promised and under-delivered.
On top of that you have Aaron Segio now suggesting that users should have less control over configuration, fewer choices, and saying that end users are dumb. He also has suggested repeatedly lately that if you're not a coder, then you can't comment on UI issues.
Gnome already has a few of those problems (removing choice, treating users like they're dumb) but Gnome users don't seem to mind. For corporate environments, or people who can't be troubled to configure things, they just want working defaults and simplicity. That isn't a flame, but rather the way things are.
I can't expect Gnome users getting upset unless they don't have a good working, default desktop.
No, the author I responded to said that any ip and copyright laws are BS, and that the concepts don't really exist. He claimed that proprietary software should never exist.
I never said people should be able to take community (GPL) software and hoard that.
I said that both have their place. Someone who wants to profit from their work should be able to protect it if they choose to do so.
NPOs are only required to spend like 2-3% of their money doing good deeds, and that is precisely what their foundation does. Meanwhile, 95%+ of their money is spent investing in companies that harm the same communities they are trying to help. The LA Times did a massive set of features on the foundation. They showed that they were financing companies that kept living conditions down, and spread carcinogens.
Even worse, it has been suggested (though not proven) that the NPO is a massive front. If a corporation is willing to sign exclusive Microsoft deals, they get kickbacks, in that the foundation will invest in your corporation. People are donating money to the foundation thinking they are doing good deeds with the money, when the money is being used to strong-arm corporate contracts.
It has also been speculated that the foundation has strong-armed governments along similiar lines. Use our products, or don't receive aid.
In conclusion, the foundation does good, and there is no denying that. The question is, does the foundation do more harm than good? The LA Times team that investigated them sure thinks so, and they aren't crazy OSS zealots or anything.
Great propoganda speech. Too bad it doesn't add up.
Communism as an economic model has nothing against free speech. The bulk of your post is your insistance that intellectual property and copyrights are evil. Why?
Programmers deserve to get paid as well. You insist proprietary software should never exist and that level of fanaticism isn't based on logic. Proprietary and OSS both have their places.
I often advocate for the use of OSS, but true freedom is allowing a developer to protect their works and profit from them, or give them openly as they choose to do so.
I agree. I read a while back that SETI went through their entire spectrum twice and hasn't found anything yet.
I've also read how over the years, despite the fact that we have begun broadcasting more signals over the years, the Earth has gotten "quieter" in that our signals are more focused and don't travel as far. Even if there was intelligent alien life out there, and even if they broadcast radio signals, it seems unlikely they'd broadcast them far enough for us to pick them up.
Zelda doesn't warrant discussion outside of Zelda 2. The original Zelda features no stat-based gameplay of any sort. Stat-based gameplay is the defining aspect of the RPG genre.
Nintendo is the sole authority of Zelda, and they have never once called the original Zelda an RPG. They have always classified the game as an adventure game. Retailers classify it as an adventure game. Reviewers classify it as an adventure game.
It is an adventure game. Just because one entry in the series dabbled with experience points, that doesn't mean Zelda belongs in the history of CRPGS.
Such an egregrious entry makes it difficult for me to take the book seriously or have any interest in reading it. And I love reading up on CRPG history. I've played most of the classics in the genre.
That really irks me. Nintendo classifies Zelda as an adventure game, precisely because it is an adventure game. Some people assume anything with a sword in it must be an RPG, because they so closely associate a fantasy setting with the RPG genre. Game genres are defined by gameplay mechanics. Thusly you can have Auto Wars, which as Mad Max-esque RPG that centered around cars. That is firmly an RPG. You can have RPGs set in the old West, or in space. Chris Avellone of Obisidian Entertainment (he was also the lead design on Planescape: Torment) has talked about doing an RPG based in high school.
Just because Zelda has a fantasy setting, that does not make it an RPG. I refuse to take a book seriously that supposedly dedicates itself to the study of the COMPUTER RPG genre, that list a game that is neither a computer game, nor an RPG.
However, just last year someone wrote a great retrospective on the CRPG genre in three parts. I think Gamesutra ended up buying the articles. Google would likely pick them up. The articles can be read for free, and they were really great.
Slashdot Mirror
Check out openSUSE's builds of KDE 4.1, which are *MUCH* better than any other KDE 4 builds I've seen.
I still won't use it however. I just mix KDE 4 apps into my KDE 3 desktop.
Check a few posts up and I posted a link.
Check a few posts up.
I believe KDE uses a bitmap cache of pre-scaled SVG icons.
Gnomelibs are currently going out the window to break compatibility. They're going to design a new gnomelibs for Gnome 3.0
A test case would perhaps to port a Gnome app to QT and kdelibs to showcase using all the KDE features like Solid, Phonon, kioslaves, etc. There is even something similiar to GnomeVFS I do believe now.
It would be great if every major app on my Linux desktop could use all these features.
The new gnomelibs could be designed to use many of these features and borrow from kdelibs.
The KDE 4.0 icon fiasco is going out the window. In KDE 4.1, you have a folder view applet on your desktop that operates largely like a file manager window. You can change the folder it views, and even filter it with smart searches, and Nepomuk meta-data.
I hate having the applet on my desktop, but in the future supposedly it will be the desktop, and support themeing/wallpapers, etc.
http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=154535
Read his blog. (Oh wait, you can't. He took it down, but check for archived versions!)
And read dot.kde.org and you'll see a plethora of these comments lately from him.
That bug is a good source of many such comments however.
Community software should mean that people can easily post bug reports and get issues like these addressed.
Open a bug for each issue and hopefully they will be addressed.
I think it is beneficial to the entire community when people report these things.
I've been disagreeing with a lot, but I don't like to see people bash him as a person.
Frankly, he seems to be a great coder, and plenty of developers keep prasing Plasma as a framework.
My concerns are more about his philosophy and PR capabilities.
There are many great advantages of KDE, such as platform independence and SVG rendering like you mentioned.
Again, I suggested the problem isn't the features.
As for making KDE 4 operate or look like OS X or Vista, that depends how much control we have over the interface. My fear/concern is that given recent discussions and posts with Aaron suggest we will have less control.
I know people will think I'm crazy, but I have a vision for kGnome.
QT 4 actually has a Clearlooks engine designed to look like Gnome. Dolphin can be configured to operate largely like Natilus (except it works better these days).
If QT 4 actully really does use less memory and runs faster, why not do a test and port a small Gnome app or two over to QT 4?
The app can run with the QT 4 Clearlooks engine, and look largely like Gnome apps, except they can take advantage of many of the KDE features like Phonon, Solid, Sonnet, etc.
As for the people who prefer C to C++, aren't there language bindings for both for QT and GTK?
I'd love to see just a few small apps as a proof of concept. It could demonstrate the feasibility of a Gnome desktop built upon QT, especially considering the annoucement of Gnome 3, and the decision to break API.
If you're going to build anew, shouldn't this concept at least be considered for a moment? Both projects can have their seperate apps, desktops, defaults, window decorations, features, etc. But more common libraries and toolkits are a win for everyone.
The problem with KDE 4 has nothing to do with features of stability, but the transparency of the project.
Many of the nicer features like Solid, Phonon, Sonnet, Akondi, etc. aren't visible. Plasma is extremely visible. It affects the users directly.
Yet no one knows what the long term design plans ffor Plasma are. The users keep getting surprised, and they feel that Plasma over-promised and under-delivered.
On top of that you have Aaron Segio now suggesting that users should have less control over configuration, fewer choices, and saying that end users are dumb. He also has suggested repeatedly lately that if you're not a coder, then you can't comment on UI issues.
Gnome already has a few of those problems (removing choice, treating users like they're dumb) but Gnome users don't seem to mind. For corporate environments, or people who can't be troubled to configure things, they just want working defaults and simplicity. That isn't a flame, but rather the way things are.
I can't expect Gnome users getting upset unless they don't have a good working, default desktop.
I didn't attack the GPL. I attacked the poster who said proprietary software should never exist, and that copyright was inherently evil.
People must be one of two extremes. No one can seem to understand that a middle exists.
No, the author I responded to said that any ip and copyright laws are BS, and that the concepts don't really exist. He claimed that proprietary software should never exist.
I never said people should be able to take community (GPL) software and hoard that.
I said that both have their place. Someone who wants to profit from their work should be able to protect it if they choose to do so.
NPOs are only required to spend like 2-3% of their money doing good deeds, and that is precisely what their foundation does. Meanwhile, 95%+ of their money is spent investing in companies that harm the same communities they are trying to help. The LA Times did a massive set of features on the foundation. They showed that they were financing companies that kept living conditions down, and spread carcinogens.
Even worse, it has been suggested (though not proven) that the NPO is a massive front. If a corporation is willing to sign exclusive Microsoft deals, they get kickbacks, in that the foundation will invest in your corporation. People are donating money to the foundation thinking they are doing good deeds with the money, when the money is being used to strong-arm corporate contracts.
It has also been speculated that the foundation has strong-armed governments along similiar lines. Use our products, or don't receive aid.
In conclusion, the foundation does good, and there is no denying that. The question is, does the foundation do more harm than good? The LA Times team that investigated them sure thinks so, and they aren't crazy OSS zealots or anything.
Great propoganda speech. Too bad it doesn't add up.
Communism as an economic model has nothing against free speech. The bulk of your post is your insistance that intellectual property and copyrights are evil. Why?
Programmers deserve to get paid as well. You insist proprietary software should never exist and that level of fanaticism isn't based on logic. Proprietary and OSS both have their places.
I often advocate for the use of OSS, but true freedom is allowing a developer to protect their works and profit from them, or give them openly as they choose to do so.
I agree. I read a while back that SETI went through their entire spectrum twice and hasn't found anything yet.
I've also read how over the years, despite the fact that we have begun broadcasting more signals over the years, the Earth has gotten "quieter" in that our signals are more focused and don't travel as far. Even if there was intelligent alien life out there, and even if they broadcast radio signals, it seems unlikely they'd broadcast them far enough for us to pick them up.
I don't want tax dollars going to SETI either.
...despite all the haters, that Google certainly isn't evil.
Thanks!
Zelda doesn't warrant discussion outside of Zelda 2. The original Zelda features no stat-based gameplay of any sort. Stat-based gameplay is the defining aspect of the RPG genre.
Nintendo is the sole authority of Zelda, and they have never once called the original Zelda an RPG. They have always classified the game as an adventure game. Retailers classify it as an adventure game. Reviewers classify it as an adventure game.
It is an adventure game. Just because one entry in the series dabbled with experience points, that doesn't mean Zelda belongs in the history of CRPGS.
Such an egregrious entry makes it difficult for me to take the book seriously or have any interest in reading it. And I love reading up on CRPG history. I've played most of the classics in the genre.
That really irks me. Nintendo classifies Zelda as an adventure game, precisely because it is an adventure game. Some people assume anything with a sword in it must be an RPG, because they so closely associate a fantasy setting with the RPG genre. Game genres are defined by gameplay mechanics. Thusly you can have Auto Wars, which as Mad Max-esque RPG that centered around cars. That is firmly an RPG. You can have RPGs set in the old West, or in space. Chris Avellone of Obisidian Entertainment (he was also the lead design on Planescape: Torment) has talked about doing an RPG based in high school.
Just because Zelda has a fantasy setting, that does not make it an RPG. I refuse to take a book seriously that supposedly dedicates itself to the study of the COMPUTER RPG genre, that list a game that is neither a computer game, nor an RPG.
However, just last year someone wrote a great retrospective on the CRPG genre in three parts. I think Gamesutra ended up buying the articles. Google would likely pick them up. The articles can be read for free, and they were really great.
You don't pay for a distro. You pay for support.
Fedora doesn't charge for software. The software itself is not commercial.
Bingo! We have a winner!
Mod. Parent. Funny.
People keep mentioning having to pay royalties. I meant commercial projects can not without paying.