If NIH brings competition on the application level, it's good
If it is on the protocol/standard level and prevents necessary cooperation, it's bad.
NIH comes from the Motif/OpenLook wars, which cost Unix the desktop. In the current situation, I'd say it's good to have competing toolkits, but they need to cooperate on the standards level, and they did (XDnD protocol). It's nice to have two desktops, one more for fancy looks, one more for a consistent interface, but apps should be interoperable, down to the level of embedding app objects from one desktop into another.
I do agree with the above reader that splitting would have been an option (after all, the argument with the thesis is an understandable one).
Different architectures shouldn't be the problem, as the CORBA object model is intended to make different architectures work together. So saying "it can't be done because of the differences" is pointless, as this technology is exactly meant or this case.
Baboon is still not finished, so it would be possible to evaluate if KOM/OP can be adapted to Gnomes nees relatively quickly. And even if Baboon will be used as currently proposed, we should consider ways to make it work with KOM/OP right from the start. Embedding Gnome apps into KDE and vice versa would be really cool!
(And please, don't be so quick to call people morons.)
Look, if you reinvent the wheel, it doesn't hurt as long as it is only for you. But when others are affected, you should try to do something sensible. If you build another railway track, you *don't* use a different rail distance than the aready existing tracks! People don't want to change trains at the end of your track, even if you track is superior.
You know that OLE2 is more mature thatn KOM/OP, so why didn't KDE make KOM/OP OLE2-compatible? Because they didn't want to, and that's their right. OLE on Corba doesn't exist, so there is nothing to be compatible to. A newly coded OLE on Corba wouldn't be more mature than KOM/OP. Besides, Baboon doesn't use the OLE2 API, it's something special just like KOM/OP. Believe me, there is really little reason not to work together on that subject (Miguel stated some things he misses in OpenParts like caching, but it's not vital and it should be possible to add it relatively easily).
Let's stop the KDE/GNOME flame wars and let both groups continue development, and let users vote by using one or the other (or a hodgepodge of both), I can't hear these senseless statements anymore! This IS development. It's vitally important to have a compatible object model, because the "hodgepodge" is the future. There is no point in having a lot of applications, but still being unable to make them work together. The general interoperability via COM is *the* most obvious advantage of Windows as desktop platform. If Linux/Unix splits up on that point, it's really a pity. I don't want to wait until somebody dublicates Gnome efforts under KDE and vice versa, I want to be able to use Gnumeric embedded into KWord and KIllustrator within GWP, without further hassle. This is absolutely inevitable if we want am up-to-date desktop system.
BUT I still have no respect for those who can't stand up for their opinions. They are cowards and I rather not have them respond to me. It's not about opinions, it's about arguments. If you don't like couterarguments, or critical replies, you are the coward. If you post on/., you have accept anonymous posts. If you don't like them, go to another site. (Note: I'm also annoyed sometimes, but there are also very useful anonymous posts.
What would have happen if the likes of Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, or Gandhi didn't stand up for their beliefs? They posted on/. as well? Great! But seriously, people may prefer not to be shot or imprisoned for their/. postings:-} In fact,/. is a *very* intolerant place, and people with deviating views -even justified ones- are usually spammed and flamed to death. So AC posts are sometimes used -e.g. by Windows developers- to bring up new, unconventional arguments. If they are offensive or useless, moderators will rate them down and they won't bother you anymore.
Thus, your anti-AC attitude is unnecessary...
Back to the topic: Miguel said this (among other things): "I talked to Torben at the Kongress about this and he did not seem very interested in redoing OpenParts/KOM with something different, as it is part of his master's thesis." The Linux Kongress was long ago, and Baboon wasn't started until much later.
So I guess decided, again, that he was better off doing it a way he though was better, just like GNOME was started. Yes, you could say another NIH, but this time without the justification of an inacceptible license. Even if Thorben didn't want to change all the things himself (which is understandable within a thesis), nobody prevented Miguel to do it himself, or at least in a compatible way. According to Thorben, his thesis is about to be finished, so he'll surely be willing to talk about extending KOM/OP. Actually there wasn't much discussion among the other Gnome developers about Baboon (AFAIK), so maybe some of them favour a compatible object model over the one chosen by Miguel.
Don't bother to reply if you can't put your name behind it. I think this is a very bad attitude. Arguments are either good or bad no matter if they are stated anonymously. There are good reason to remain as anonymous as possible on the net, especially in times where 'total surveillance' is nearer to reality than ever (remember the European ECHOLON and ENFOPOL cases). When I lowered the threshhold, I found that some AC response to you (not really offensive) had been rated down. I don't know if you are a moderator yourself, but in any case it is inappropriate to generally "ban" AC responses to comments of a specific person...
Now back to the topic: 1. Qt 2.0 isn't out yet. So what?
2. QPL compatible with GPL? Maybe yes. The QPL isn't finished yet, and people are trying to come close to GPL compatibility (although this is literally impossible; apparently even linking GPL to X is illegal -at least under German law). Help them if you want it to succeed.
Besides that, neither Open Source nor free software implies the GPL; it is just *one* option. It's the GPL's fault that it isn't compatible with other licenses (and this is intentional).
Miguel is implementing that object model if anyone has any real objections to how it is done I suggest they show us all how it should be done. Why not try and work with KDE on KOM/OpenParts to improve/adapt it, or at least try to be compatible? There is still time to find a common ground, as Baboon is not finished yet. KOM/OP works well in KOffice, so it could work well in Gnome, too. Gtk and QT have agreed on a common DnD protocol, why shouldn't KDE and Gnome be able to agree on a common object model?
Slashdot Mirror
If NIH brings competition on the application level, it's good
If it is on the protocol/standard level and prevents necessary cooperation, it's bad.
NIH comes from the Motif/OpenLook wars, which cost Unix the desktop.
In the current situation, I'd say it's good to have competing toolkits, but they need to cooperate on the standards level, and they did (XDnD protocol).
It's nice to have two desktops, one more for fancy looks, one more for a consistent interface, but apps should be interoperable, down to the level of embedding app objects from one desktop into another.
I do agree with the above reader that splitting would have been an option (after all, the argument with the thesis is an understandable one).
Different architectures shouldn't be the problem, as the CORBA object model is intended to make different architectures work together. So saying "it can't be done because of the differences" is pointless, as this technology is exactly meant or this case.
Baboon is still not finished, so it would be possible to evaluate if KOM/OP can be adapted to Gnomes nees relatively quickly.
And even if Baboon will be used as currently proposed, we should consider ways to make it work with KOM/OP right from the start.
Embedding Gnome apps into KDE and vice versa would be really cool!
(And please, don't be so quick to call people morons.)
Look, if you reinvent the wheel, it doesn't hurt as long as it is only for you. But when others are affected, you should try to do something sensible.
If you build another railway track, you *don't* use a different rail distance than the aready existing tracks! People don't want to change trains at the end of your track, even if you track is superior.
You know that OLE2 is more mature thatn KOM/OP, so why didn't KDE make KOM/OP OLE2-compatible? Because they didn't want to, and that's their right.
OLE on Corba doesn't exist, so there is nothing to be compatible to. A newly coded OLE on Corba wouldn't be more mature than KOM/OP.
Besides, Baboon doesn't use the OLE2 API, it's something special just like KOM/OP.
Believe me, there is really little reason not to work together on that subject (Miguel stated some things he misses in OpenParts like caching, but it's not vital and it should be possible to add it relatively easily).
Let's stop the KDE/GNOME flame wars and let both groups continue development, and let users vote by using one or the other (or a hodgepodge of both),
I can't hear these senseless statements anymore!
This IS development. It's vitally important to have a compatible object model, because the "hodgepodge" is the future. There is no point in having a lot of applications, but still being unable to make them work together. The general interoperability via COM is *the* most obvious advantage of Windows as desktop platform. If Linux/Unix splits up on that point, it's really a pity. I don't want to wait until somebody dublicates Gnome efforts under KDE and vice versa, I want to be able to use Gnumeric embedded into KWord and KIllustrator within GWP, without further hassle. This is absolutely inevitable if we want am up-to-date desktop system.
BUT I still have no respect for those who can't stand up for their opinions. They are cowards and /., you have accept anonymous posts. If you don't like them, go to another site. (Note: I'm also annoyed sometimes, but there are also very useful anonymous posts.
/. as well? Great! /. postings :-} /. is a *very* intolerant place, and people with deviating views -even justified ones- are usually spammed and flamed to death. So AC posts are sometimes used -e.g. by Windows developers- to bring up new, unconventional arguments.
I rather not have them respond to me.
It's not about opinions, it's about arguments. If you don't like couterarguments, or critical replies, you are the coward. If you post on
What would have happen if the likes of Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, or Gandhi didn't stand up for their beliefs?
They posted on
But seriously, people may prefer not to be shot or imprisoned for their
In fact,
If they are offensive or useless, moderators will rate them down and they won't bother you anymore.
Thus, your anti-AC attitude is unnecessary...
Back to the topic:
Miguel said this (among other things): "I talked to Torben at the Kongress about this
and he did not seem very interested in redoing OpenParts/KOM with something different, as it is part of his master's thesis."
The Linux Kongress was long ago, and Baboon wasn't started until much later.
So I guess decided, again, that he was better off doing it a way he though was better, just like GNOME was started.
Yes, you could say another NIH, but this time without the justification of an inacceptible license. Even if Thorben didn't want to change all the things himself (which is understandable within a thesis), nobody prevented Miguel to do it himself, or at least in a compatible way.
According to Thorben, his thesis is about to be finished, so he'll surely be willing to talk about extending KOM/OP.
Actually there wasn't much discussion among the other Gnome developers about Baboon (AFAIK), so maybe some of them favour a compatible object model over the one chosen by Miguel.
Don't bother to reply if you can't put your name behind it.
I think this is a very bad attitude. Arguments are either good or bad no matter if they are stated anonymously.
There are good reason to remain as anonymous as possible on the net, especially in times where 'total surveillance' is nearer to reality than ever (remember the European ECHOLON and ENFOPOL cases).
When I lowered the threshhold, I found that some AC response to you (not really offensive) had been rated down. I don't know if you are a moderator yourself, but in any case it is inappropriate to generally "ban" AC responses to comments of a specific person...
Now back to the topic:
1. Qt 2.0 isn't out yet.
So what?
2. QPL compatible with GPL?
Maybe yes. The QPL isn't finished yet, and people are trying to come close to GPL compatibility (although this is literally impossible; apparently even linking GPL to X is illegal -at least under German law). Help them if you want it to succeed.
Besides that, neither Open Source nor free software implies the GPL; it is just *one* option.
It's the GPL's fault that it isn't compatible with other licenses (and this is intentional).
Miguel is implementing that object model if anyone has any real objections to how it is done I suggest they show us all how it should be done.
Why not try and work with KDE on KOM/OpenParts to improve/adapt it, or at least try to be compatible?
There is still time to find a common ground, as Baboon is not finished yet. KOM/OP works well in KOffice, so it could work well in Gnome, too.
Gtk and QT have agreed on a common DnD protocol, why shouldn't KDE and Gnome be able to agree on a common object model?