Linked by Eugenia Loli on Mon 16th Sep 2002 06:48 UTC, submitted by Cesar Cardoso
Red Hat "We see the desktop as only a piece of the entire operating system product; integration must extend beyond the desktop. We also believe that users care most about functionality and integration rather than the underlying technology. For these reasons, we have created a single desktop look and feel for Red Hat Linux rather than maintaining two unrelated configurations." Very good stuff over there from Owen Taylor, the Red Hat Desktop Team member.
Order by: Score:
So ...
by Anonymous on Mon 16th Sep 2002 06:53 UTC

Does this mean that the once Gnome favored RedHat is now going to tweak it to make it look more like KDE?

Well.
by anonymous on Mon 16th Sep 2002 06:58 UTC

There have been much ranting about changing the KDE look
in RH Null. I have no understanding whatsoever about that.
Both Gnome and KDE have a license that permits vendor changing things, besides it looks good.

RE: So ...
by Eugenia on Mon 16th Sep 2002 06:59 UTC

Why are you posting without reading the article?
The guy CLEARLY states that "Since we have a greater number of experienced GNOME hackers than we have of KDE hackers we are probably doing a better job with our modifications to GNOME than we are for KDE."

Red Hat does not care to make Gnome look like KDE, or KDE look like Gnome. Their point is to create something that their customers would want to buy. If that would be something that looks like.. AtariOS or... GEM, then that would be it. Depends what the customer/average user wants. They have no preferences based on "favoring". They have preferences based on what the person who pays for their produts wants.

we have already talked about it
by Eugenia on Mon 16th Sep 2002 07:04 UTC

Besides, we talked a lot about it here:
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=1637

I think Red Hat just saw the light.
by Naish on Mon 16th Sep 2002 07:08 UTC

Finally, integration between KDE and Gnome (even if only in look and feel).

It looks like Red Hat is trying to get linux to the point where MacOS was in 1986 and BeOS in 1999 (perhaps even earlier)...

Good luck Red Hat, I hope your modifications become standard for both desktops.



RE: I think Red Hat just saw the light.
by iDonkey on Mon 16th Sep 2002 07:18 UTC

I think so too! And if KDE, Qt, GTK+ and Gnome projects accept these patches that make the two environments consistent for ever and ever, then Red Hat has made a beautiful gift to the Linux community.
The difficult part would be to get these hardcore fanatics notice that this a real gift and innovation and not that "red hat doesn't like KDE and gnome" ignorant shit that they spit lately.

great
by Anonymous on Mon 16th Sep 2002 07:31 UTC

Gnome is doing the right thing. Period. I just wish KDE had a workable menu system so that they could have that be the default setup.

However I'm not one to use defaults for any OS. In windows I had the Start Menu on the top, for instance.

ack!
by deleted on Mon 16th Sep 2002 07:32 UTC

ack!

Trade Redhat for Gnome.

RDE
by Anonymous on Mon 16th Sep 2002 07:53 UTC

Did Redhat solved the incompatibilities of their "RDE" with KDE (especially the services stuff), or do they indentionelly ship an incompatible system?

RE: Gnome
by Anonymous on Mon 16th Sep 2002 07:59 UTC

> Gnome is doing the right thing.

Yeah, right. After 4 years of hacking and many many million dollars shoved into their hands they don't even have a usable file dialog or a world-class component system.

Gnome maybe good enough for you. That's fine. But it's no option for many others.

RE: I think Red Hat just saw the light.
by Anonymous on Mon 16th Sep 2002 08:05 UTC

"""And if KDE, Qt, GTK+ and Gnome projects accept these patches that make the two environments consistent for ever and ever, then Red Hat has made a beautiful gift to the Linux community. """

Which patches? AFAIK the Red Hat guys never send any KDE patches to the KDE lists or any KDE developers. The Red Hat devs never talked to the KDE developers.

What are you suggesting? Red Hat patches KDE to make it incompatible, rename all service names, remove the about dialog, which credits the KDE project and as a present the KDE devs should incorporate these 'patches' into KDE? This is a joke, right?

I don't see KDE
by Mutiny on Mon 16th Sep 2002 08:28 UTC

From what I read, RH isn't changing KDE or Gnome, only the settings. So what's the problem?

I can't see any KDE on my system with the default install. All the KDE stuff seemed to be on disk 3 and I never used that one.

Null is the best desktop Linux I've used so far. It is comfortable and even runs on my legacy free Abit IT7 Board!!! I haven't tried the onboard RAID because I use a 3Ware Escalade RAID controller, but the firewire, all USB and sound work perfectly.

I added nvidia drivers, Crossover Office and Plugins and then installed the Unreal Tournament 2003 Demo. That's ALL I had to do to get a working system on the hardest motherboard to support with any OS other than Windows.

It is a smooth running distro and very professional. I think RH has the right idea.

Mutiny

RE: Gnome
by Anonymous on Mon 16th Sep 2002 08:53 UTC

Note that there is correction right after that post saying I meant to say Redhat.

You my friend, are an idiot

Why need to choice if there is null ?
by korrel on Mon 16th Sep 2002 09:01 UTC

interesting

But if that is what I need then I can better use windows.
If I can only choice between Redhat and Redhat
why do I need to choice ? Isn't that what microsoft does ?

Why don't they take out kde than if they want everybody have the same desktop ? Isn't that the easiest solution.
only keeping the libs to run the applications.

I stay with Mandrake I like my freedom to choice for myself what I think is best.

If I wanted Redhat to do it for me I stayed with microsoft.


say no to comercialism
by George on Mon 16th Sep 2002 09:05 UTC

i am not a friend of redhat nor am i a friend of the comercialism of the gnome desktop and no, i am no kde user.

3 years ago:

- kde 1, 2000 users
- gnome 1, 2000 users

today:

- kde 3, 3500 users
- gnome 2, 500 users

gnome is definately not doing the right job otherwise they don't loose so many people every day. gnome will normalize again when companies like sun, redhat and ximian go and care for their own crappy stuff without itching their nose into other people's work. working for gnome today is like beeing a free co-operate worker for sun, redhat or ximian. so basically no one who cas 200gr. brain in his head will contribute to gnome. contribute to gnome today and see your software slaughtered by the big companies for money tommorow. you people should investigate into slashdot and the gnome mailinglist, after the official gnome 2 announcement a shitload of people rant and complain about gnome.

thats pure fact.

Bravo...
by Anonymous on Mon 16th Sep 2002 09:10 UTC

I am one of those running (null) and I absolutely love what they have done to the desktop. Now KDE/Gnome will have to make their code faster and offer more features in their own apps to gain favor. Trying to make the defaults look cool doesn't solve anything (like the article says). Development needs to continue but be focused elsewhere.

say amen
by George on Mon 16th Sep 2002 09:21 UTC

you can't tie 2 different things together and say "look it's one". kde is already well integrated and offers everything, so i don't see the point forking gnome inside of it. that's plain stupid and makes no sense.

example:

running the kde desktop, having galeon running while i know that it requires gnome, mozilla to run.

- kde with all it's libraries
- gnome with all it's libraries
- mozilla

to run 'galeon'

how more complicated do you want your desktop ? not to mention that you can use konqueror for that task by knowing that you don't need all the gnome libraries stuff etc.

same goes for kde.

running gnome-desktop, installing kdelibraries and stuff to have e.g. koffice running.

or better.. crossoverplugins..

now let us all sum that together, this gives you the biggest pile of mixtured shit that exists. you can come up and argue 'the best of all desktops' but hey, think clearly. this is the worst nightmare ever.

not to mention that redhat nowadays is the most hated distribution ever. they don't care for ideals anymore they care for money, money and more money. they would also sell their 60-70 years mothers as a 15 years old virgin to their customers....

Re: say no to comercialism
by Dekkard on Mon 16th Sep 2002 09:26 UTC

i am not a friend of redhat nor am i a friend of the comercialism of the gnome desktop and no, i am no kde user.
It's very clear you're not a friend of Gnome, more like you have a visceral hate :/

3 years ago:

- kde 1, 2000 users
- gnome 1, 2000 users

today:

- kde 3, 3500 users
- gnome 2, 500 users


Funny thing, according to your numbers, there's been no increase in the number of users. I'm sure there was, linux-desktop bitching aside. What I mean is that you just made this up from nothing ;)

gnome is definately not doing the right job otherwise they don't loose so many people every day.
That's what you said with those numbers, that don't seem reliable to me.

gnome will normalize again when companies like sun, redhat and ximian go and care for their own crappy stuff without itching their nose into other people's work.
Unlike many other companies, they help. They contribute source code, testing and even money. What's so wrong about that? If you read the way the Gnome foundation works, you'd understand companies can't change the way Gnome is developed in a drastical way. And anyway, free software developers will leave if they don't like the situation (something that doesn't look to be very fashionable among the Gnome developers).

working for gnome today is like beeing a free co-operate worker for sun, redhat or ximian. so basically no one who cas 200gr. brain in his head will contribute to gnome. contribute to gnome today and see your software slaughtered by the big companies for money tommorow.
Or even better, don't work for ANY free software product, since many companies get benefit from your work, perhaps (God forbid) even your OWN company (less to pay for licenses, more to pay workers, or at least not to get red numbers). And as I said up, those companies are no absolute leechs, they contribute.

you people should investigate into slashdot and the gnome mailinglist, after the official gnome 2 announcement a shitload of people rant and complain about gnome.
I guess specially slashdot, I'm sure it will be the most objective source of info. BTW, they sound like Gnome trolls... but it can't be,there aren't any around for sure... really...

thats pure fact.
Thanks for the enlightenment, now I see the world in a completely different way.
</sarcasm>

This is a joke
by Anonymous on Mon 16th Sep 2002 09:37 UTC

Even RMS thinks corporations should have the same rights to the source code as everyone else. And frankly, so do I. You KDE guys have been poisoned by the QT concept of not being able to sell commercial apps without paying QT. Thats worse than any commercialism, thats a bloody monopoly. You have been tricked into thinking you are free of commercial interests.

blah
by George on Mon 16th Sep 2002 09:40 UTC

> > i am not a friend of redhat nor am i a friend of the
> > comercialism of the gnome desktop and no, i am no kde
> > user.

> It's very clear you're not a friend of Gnome, more like
> you have a visceral hate :/

oh, i am a friend of gnome... as it was before such companies are getting involved and fuck it up.

> > Funny thing, according to your numbers, there's been no
> > increase in the number of users. I'm sure there was,
> > linux-desktop bitching aside. What I mean is that you
> > just made this up from nothing ;)

you missed the point once again. for simplicity i kept the amount of overall users. i only showed that most of them switched over to kde.

> > Unlike many other companies, they help. They contribute
> > source code, testing and even money. What's so wrong
> > about that? If you read the way the Gnome foundation
> > works, you'd understand companies can't change the way
> > Gnome is developed in a drastical way. And anyway, free
> > software developers will leave if they don't like the
> > situation (something that doesn't look to be very
> > fashionable among the Gnome developers).

you are missing something here. 'helping' in terms of 'help' is ok as far it goes. but taking over the leading controlling over gnome as it is now is not correct anymore. if you follow the dicussions on gnome-mailinglists etc. you will realize that the SUN people acting like nazis there. dude. don't get fooled by that fucking 'open source' hype. companies don't contribute for free. not if they have 2000 and more employees working for them that want to feed their children, pay their bills etc. 'open source' was a god given present for these companies. dumb morons working for free on software where companies like sun directs them to the 'how our customers like to see your software' way and then the big money flows in their case. you as open source programmer only get a 'thank you' but you don't see the big '$$$$$' got it ? by the way isn't programming open source for fun ? wasn't it meant to contribute to a project like gnome for fun ? i mean you don't need a diploma for this little brainactivity to find out. there is nothing about 'open source' 'freedom' 'free' 'fun' 'happy' 'friendship' anymore on gnome. it's all about CASH...

now write it down on a piece of paper

COMPANIES MAKE MONEY WITH MY SOFTWARE THAT I WORKED FOR MONTHS ON. ALL I GET IS A WARM FART INTO MY FACE. I DRIVE A FUCKING OLD MUSTANG 79', WHILE SUN EMPLOYEES ARE DRIVING A BIG NEW MERCEDES OR BMW. I LIVE IN A 2 ROOMS APPARTMENT AND CARE WHERE TO GET THE MONEY FOR THE NEXT MONTH, WHILE SUN PEOPLE HAVE A NICE 8-10 ROOMS HOUSE. I AM STUPID BECAUSE I WORK FOR FREE.

This is rubbish
by Richard Moore on Mon 16th Sep 2002 09:45 UTC

There's nothing wrong with Red Hat putting in their own artwork etc. Personally I think it's pretty poor quality artwork, but that is there choice. However, for them to make changes which will definitely reduce stability and also changes which break compatability with standard KDE source tarballs then claim they want KDE and Gnome to compete on 'Stability' and 'ease of customization' absolutely beggars belief. Just how are we (KDE) supposed to do that when they've introduced huge problems we already know about?

Rich.


they provide an unified desktop and a common theme for the 2 desktop, when you use the defaults themes, there's no way to distingu them.



why redhat claims it's a new feature ?

Re: blah
by Dekkard on Mon 16th Sep 2002 10:05 UTC

oh, i am a friend of gnome... as it was before such companies are getting involved and fuck it up.
I'm glad you made that clear ;)

you missed the point once again. for simplicity i kept the amount of overall users. i only showed that most of them switched over to kde.
Sorry, but you can't show anything with made up numbers. I'll agree that the number of KDE users is superior, but not that it's increased because there were many who switched from Gnome, neither that the number of Gnome users decreased in the last 3 years.

you are missing something here. 'helping' in terms of 'help' is ok as far it goes. but taking over the leading controlling over gnome as it is now is not correct anymore.
We all know Gnome is now aiming towards being used in the enterprise desktop, and companies got interested on it. It was a matter of time they got involved in the development, and marked some basic points to aim that goal. I don't see that as such a bad thing.

don't get fooled by that fucking 'open source' hype. companies don't contribute for free. not if they have 2000 and more employees working for them that want to feed their children, pay their bills etc. 'open source' was a god given present for these companies.
Of course, i. e. Sun didn't have to develop a desktop from scratch, or from a CDE upgrade, but what you forget is that many open source developers work for companies that can get many benefits from it.

dumb morons working for free on software where companies like sun directs them to the 'how our customers like to see your software' way and then the big money flows in their case.
Developers for Gnome are working for free on a project that doesn't only benefit Sun, Ximian or Redhat, but ANY company that gets interested on it. It's open source, there're not only 2 companies that get the improvements. You think like if this was propietary software.

you as open source programmer only get a 'thank you' but you don't see the big '$$$$$' got it ? by the way isn't programming open source for fun ? wasn't it meant to contribute to a project like gnome for fun ? i mean you don't need a diploma for this little brainactivity to find out. there is nothing about 'open source' 'freedom' 'free' 'fun' 'happy' 'friendship' anymore on gnome. it's all about CASH...
Working for fun in a project that can benefit many others is still possible, Gnome is living proof, as is KDE, Mozilla, Openoffice, etc etc. We all know companies get benefit from Gnome hackers' hard work, but so they did before Ximian and Sun got in, and it happens with projects such as mysql, or Apache. About brainactivity, well, if you feel developing for Gnome is a fool thing, don't do it. You're not forced, neither are all the developers that, according to you, are facing a fascist attitude from Sun. Perhaps you should note that the ones receiving orders are Gnome foundation members, then they change the goals and stuff from what companies/counselors want, all the developer sees is that they are asked to make some changes in their programs in a given date. Or, they can leave it to some other maintainers, if they don't have time / don't want to do it / don't know how to do it. No whips in this ship.

now write it down on a piece of paper

COMPANIES MAKE MONEY WITH MY SOFTWARE THAT I WORKED FOR MONTHS ON. ALL I GET IS A WARM FART INTO MY FACE. I DRIVE A FUCKING OLD MUSTANG 79', WHILE SUN EMPLOYEES ARE DRIVING A BIG NEW MERCEDES OR BMW. I LIVE IN A 2 ROOMS APPARTMENT AND CARE WHERE TO GET THE MONEY FOR THE NEXT MONTH, WHILE SUN PEOPLE HAVE A NICE 8-10 ROOMS HOUSE. I AM STUPID BECAUSE I WORK FOR FREE.

I don't need to write it down. Neither I agree. If you feel programming for free is stupid, don't do it, many developers don't feel the same, and it's not like all of them are starving, or don't get work in other companies based in their experience programming for open source projects. Hell, programmers have been contracted full time to work on projects like Gnome, Mozilla or KDE. Companies know they can't rely only on hackers that program for fun.

no
by George on Mon 16th Sep 2002 10:28 UTC

@Dekkart

hi, i would be really thankfull if you don't quote with completely out of context quotes. if you want to reply then please reply with correct quote. you somehow ripped off all the sentences that i wrote.

Re: no
by Dekkard on Mon 16th Sep 2002 10:31 UTC

You did the same before, but I don't think the text I quoted was so out of context. Think what you want.

BTW, I read almost the same comment about quoting made by Eugenia... perhaps it would have been faster to copy and paste it ;)

I don't get it
by John Blink on Mon 16th Sep 2002 12:19 UTC

Is it because Redhat is so popular. Is that the problem with Redhat giving KDE a skin?

Everytime I read about Lycoris, I don't see people complaining about it. Yet everytime I read about I always read

"A heavily modified KDE...."

So what is the primary reason people have a problem with Redhat null. Is it because Mozilla is the primary web browser. So what I, usually use Mozilla when I use Linux anyway.

I have used RH null, and I have a hint for everybody, change the theme back to KDE default ;) Also the Konqueror web browser is still located in the Kmenu. Look at the Extras menu item.

GNOME and KDE are horribly bloated ...
by gort on Mon 16th Sep 2002 12:25 UTC

and not in line with where linux excels. Linux will never be a desktop OS, at least in the vane of the M$ products. As opposed to focusing on these two slow memory hogging windowmanagers, we should turn our attention to (and support) lightweight and functional managers.

I used KDE for about two years and dumped it because of bloat. I used GOME for about 1 year and dumped it because of bloat. Now I use one of several nice lightweight desktops and I am a happy camper. Linux will never win over those M$ desktop users and I am sick of getting sucked into the battle of those that try.

RE:
by Anonymous on Mon 16th Sep 2002 12:41 UTC

"""You KDE guys have been poisoned by the QT concept of not being able to sell commercial apps without paying QT. Thats worse than any commercialism, thats a bloody monopoly."""

Yes, it's really evil to have to pay for other's work if I want to make money with that. Everything should be free for me and others should pay dearly for my own work. This world is so wrong ...

RE: I don't get it
by Anonymous on Mon 16th Sep 2002 12:47 UTC

>Is it because Redhat is so popular. Is that the problem
>with Redhat giving KDE a skin?

No thats not the problem, having a common skin is a very fine thing to have.

There is not one single KDE core developer who complained about the unified theme Red Hat developed for Gnome, KDE, GTK+, Qt, XMMS, and Mozilla or about the popularity of Red Hat. They complain about other things. It all has already been sayed. If you are really interested what kde developers complain about, read in the KDE core development mailing list archive. It's all open for the public.

Re: gort
by Devon on Mon 16th Sep 2002 12:49 UTC

If your sick of getting "sucked" in, the first step would be not to inject yourself into the discussion in the first place... *rolls eyes*

Icons
by Hmmm on Mon 16th Sep 2002 13:07 UTC

Is there any place I can download the icons used on the new desktop in PNG format, or something similar?

I am looking particularly for that 'Start Here' icon, the one with the map and compass.

Get a Job You hippies
by Anonymous on Mon 16th Sep 2002 13:11 UTC

I just read a response, say no to commercialism. Get a job you hippie. Gnome will win out wait and see, sun supports it.

KDE compatability
by John Blink on Mon 16th Sep 2002 13:14 UTC

Okay I back tracked a little and read about the problems that KDE developers have with Redhat.

But my question remains do these developers have a problem with Lycoris's Desktop/LX

Although Desktop/LX is "a heavily modified KDE" is it still 100% compatible with the default KDE?

Redhat and KDE
by bahamot on Mon 16th Sep 2002 13:34 UTC

Well, personally i think whatever Redhat planning to changed over KDE looks and feel, for me it doesn't really matter as long as they change it to looks and feels better than before!!
And also i think if there are (i think in fact there are) people who don't like it, they still can change it back, or don't use it, just download and compile it!! Well i'm not favoring any side but really why bother to keep arguing because of that?? Each people has different taste! :>

cheers

wow you people are incedible!
by bytes256 on Mon 16th Sep 2002 13:43 UTC

why do all of you people continue to bitch and complain and whine about the defaults...guess what, they're DEFAULTS you can change them...on linux you can change them quite a lot...including swtiching your freakin window manager to something else...or you can install Ximian Gnome overtop of Red Hat's Gnome distro or go grab stock KDE for KDE.org...i just don't see the fucking problem here...

how many windows users do you see that still use the default configuration? and Linux users are supposed to be slightly more sophisticated right?

oh here's another hint...there's a nice little program red hat bundles called 'switchdesk' ...makes it pretty easy to switch to a different desktop

and nobody is forcing you to use Red Hat...there's a few other options in the linux world

so anyway...stop bitching...if you like Red Hat Null...coool
if you don't shut up and move on...simple as fucking that

-bytes256

That damned hat
by Jason on Mon 16th Sep 2002 13:55 UTC

I just want to get the foot back in the gnome bar... anyone know how to remove that damned ugly red hat and get my foot back?

Thanks...

Why I don't understand RedHat Strategy
by Ecureuil on Mon 16th Sep 2002 14:00 UTC

Reading the essay by Owen Taylor, it seems to me that he thinks that the desktop user is switching commonly between windows manager (KDE / KWin and Gnome / Metacity) and that they should erase the differences between the two.

It is a bizarre idea. The windows manager is the more stable part of your desktop experience. I'm a KDE user but I want to try a Gnome application, I wont fire gnome, but run the application in KWin. If Red Hat was coherent they would ship only one desktop manager (Gnome, I presume) and when they think applications external to the Gnome project are better, modify them so they blend more easily and esthetically in their desktop. Shipping two windows managers nearly identical just create more complexity for the help desk.

I also don't understand why they don't give the option during installation to choose either vanilla KDE, vanilla Gnome or their Business Desktop. They would adress the new market of corporate desktop users while keeping their old clients happy.

All in all, it doesn't make a lot of sense. It looks like, Red Hat marketing forced the development team to include KDE (that's what the client want) and the development team which is strongly pro-Gnome found this bizarre compromise where they botch everything.
Owen Taylor also doesn't mention in his essay something other posters have mentioned : a strategy of 'best of the breed' that mix all kind of X applications create a system that is slow and bloated, it is certainly not the future.

Ecureuil

...
by rajan r on Mon 16th Sep 2002 14:16 UTC

Anonymous: Does this mean that the once Gnome favored RedHat is now going to tweak it to make it look more like KDE?

GNOME is RH Null look nothing like the standard GNOME 2 you can download off GNOME's FTP servers.

In my opinion however that Null looks better than both KDE 3.0.x and GNOME 2.0.x. Feel free to disagree.

Anonymous: Gnome is doing the right thing. Period. I just wish KDE had a workable menu system so that they could have that be the default setup.

What is so bad about KDE's menu system?

Anonymous: Yeah, right. After 4 years of hacking and many many million dollars shoved into their hands they don't even have a usable file dialog or a world-class component system.

I find Bonobo much more forward looking than KParts ever was. KParts was designed to fix one (or perhaps two) problems, Bonobo is bringing the power of CORBA to GNOME. CORBA has many features that KDE can't even think of, including a large set of language support. Another feature is that if component A is compiled with GCC 3, and component B is compiled with GCC 2.9, and component C is compiled with ICC, they all work together through CORBA.

And on the file dialogs, KDE didn't do much innovation with that, they copied the idea from Windows. GNOME 2.2 would come with a better file dialog that would be something like Mac OS X's, Windows', RISC OS, Amiga OS etc. combined together. Taking the best UI features and properly integrating them of course.

Anonymous: Red Hat patches KDE to [...] remove the about dialog, which credits the KDE project[...]

I don't see the GNOME developers get all worked up over this. It is the KDE developers. Perhaps because Red Hat is more pro-GNOME and they see this as an insult.

Mutiny: I can't see any KDE on my system with the default install. All the KDE stuff seemed to be on disk 3 and I never used that one.

All the major KDE stuff is on Disk 2.

korrel: Why don't they take out kde than if they want everybody have the same desktop ? Isn't that the easiest solution.

Some people would rather use KDE, even if it comes with a different look. You don't seem to understand: KDE isn't all about looks, it is mainly about the way they arrange things, the way stuff integrates and "just works".

Besides, KDE isn't installed by default, it is practically not installing it.

korrel: I stay with Mandrake I like my freedom to choice for myself what I think is best.

Mandrake used to be the best, now everything else is better than it. Nothing much changed from Mdk 8.2 to 9.0 except it became more uglier and the control center more stable and the entire distro faster.

George: i am not a friend of redhat nor am i a friend of the comercialism of the gnome desktop and no, i am no kde user. [...]

One reall gotta wonder: where did you get the stats?

Besides, on GNOME Foundation, the roles blah blah blah, you have the right to make your own contribution. Suddenly got a rare innovative idea? Write code, contribute it. Sun, RH and Ximian just provides paid developers, and they contribute a lot of stuff to GNOME, like the Accessilblity Toolkit.

I wouldn't believe it for a minute if GNOME direction is based on commercial interest. The top guns behind GNOME Foundation, that basicly directs future GNOME development are from 3 rival companies. RH and Sun are now arch-rivals and have different visions for the desktop. Sun and Ximian are at odds over .NET and Java. RH and Ximian relationship doesn't involve publicly denouncing the other company, but isn't a rosy either.

Sure, they help each other a lot. Sun pays Ximian, RH pays Ximian, etc. But they don't see things eye to eye, especially when it comes to GNOME.

Besides, most of KDE main developers are hired by companies like SuSE and Mandrake.....

George: not to mention that redhat nowadays is the most hated distribution ever.

As well as the most money making distro. Besides, I have never seen a beta recieved so much positive comments. I once hated Red Hat's products, now I can't wait to buy a box set of RH 8.0

Don't judge RH 8.0 (Null) as the same as previous releases of RH.

Anonymous: You KDE guys have been poisoned by the QT concept of not being able to sell commercial apps without paying QT.

The people behind KDE couldn't care less about commercialism. The people behind FSF couldn't care about commercialism. People that refuse to pay $2,000 and choose something else for being cheaper and not better is being stupid.

Besides, with Qt, one could easily port their software to multiple platforms (Windows and Mac). And most commercial third party developers for Linux would probably like to enter other potentially more profitable markets.

John Blink: Everytime I read about Lycoris, I don't see people complaining about it. Yet everytime I read about I always read

Maybe at KDE's mailing list.... but here? I can't remember how many times I bitch about Lycoris' theme. (But it is mainly because it is an unprofessional ripoff).

gort: and not in line with where linux excels. Linux will never be a desktop OS, at least in the vane of the M$ products

Accroading to IDC, Linux is the second most major player in the desktop market, and the only major contender to Microsoft in the x86 desktop market. Heck, if Microsoft were to have a retrial, they wouldn't be considered a monopoly anymore.

But the bloat you mention: use Windows, use Mac OS X. By your defination, they are all bloat. Hmmm, interesting. Strangely enough, you pick horridly difficult to use WMs as better candidates for Linux on the desktop.

Anonymous: I just read a response, say no to commercialism. Get a job you hippie. Gnome will win out wait and see, sun supports it.

Sun isn't a major player in the desktop market. Why would GNOME win because of Sun? Twisted logic, my friend.

Re: Why I don't understand RedHat Strategy
by rajan r on Mon 16th Sep 2002 14:18 UTC

I agree with you. Red Hat should just stop bundling KDE, and just place in the libraries and needed stuff to make apps just work. If they find an app that is better than the GNOME altenative, modify it to follow GNOME's HI rules, and make it look like an GNOME/RH application.

But then it doesn't matter. The default installation of Red Hat, in which most people would install, doesn't come with KDE.

If you ask me
by Miles Robinson on Mon 16th Sep 2002 15:13 UTC

I'd rather RedHat simply ship with GNOME2, exclusively, and have the QT libraries so that people may still use QT apps.

But that's just coming from someone spoiled on Slackware with Dropline GNOME. ;)

RE: If you ask me
by Anonymous on Mon 16th Sep 2002 15:30 UTC

I think that Redhat should ship with KDE exclusively and include the libraries necessary to run GTK apps since KDE is more user friendly.

Great Effort
by linux_baby on Mon 16th Sep 2002 15:31 UTC

The article/explanation is great, and I am glad that Redhat is taking out the time to explain. Man, how can anyone continue to bitch after reading the article? How can any reasonable person possibly disagree with the contents?

Redhat NULL is is a great effort. I would say is a huge effort in the right direction, and don't be surprised if Redhat gets even more users.

Don't life the default look? Fine, you are a techie anyways, just go ahead and change it the way you like.

yes
by Anonymous on Mon 16th Sep 2002 15:33 UTC

@linux_baby

well i don't want to say it but uhm..... i say it.... 'you are stupid'.

Re: Icons
by chimera on Mon 16th Sep 2002 15:44 UTC

> Is there any place I can download the icons used on the new desktop in PNG format, or something similar?
>I am looking particularly for that 'Start Here' icon, the one with the map and compass.

http://jimmac.musichall.cz/

Re: I don't understand Redhat Strategy
by linux_baby on Mon 16th Sep 2002 15:44 UTC

> also don't understand why they don't give the option
> during installation to choose either vanilla KDE,
> vanilla Gnome or their Business Desktop.

Because, Redhat is hoping to make their system easy enough to install/use for everybody else, not just for power users like you. Too much choice is NOT good. It is overwhelming and intimidating for most people.

"Vanilla KDE", "vanilla Gnome", and "Business Desktop"? Good idea, but it would be immensely confusing to most not-very technical people. Really, other than geeks, who cares if you desktop is called, "gnome", "kde", or whatever? People just want a smooth, pretty, functional desktop to get their work done!

If you care about having these desktop options, you probably have enough skills, or enough motivation, to get whatever your preferences are.

I applaud Redhat's direction. And no, I don't use the default desktop: My preference: using Crystal Icons + some prefered KDE icons in gnome.

Re: Anonymous
by linux_baby on Mon 16th Sep 2002 15:47 UTC

Anonymous,

> well i don't want to say it but
> uhm..... i say it.... 'you are stupid'.

Hmm.. would you care to explain why you think I am stupid sir? Sure we disagree, but that isn't enough reason.

Re:Anonymous
by John Blink on Mon 16th Sep 2002 16:15 UTC

Linux_baby is not stupid and I agree with his comments.

It is common for an OS to be defined by it GUI.

Redhat is not called KDE it is called Redhat.

When you looked at computer monitor, Redhat doesn't want you two think it is just another linux running KDE or Gnome, they want you to think it is a computer running Redhat Linux.

Once I was speaking with a unix admin at school in his office, I saw KDE running and I said "..so you are running linux" he said "no it is freebsd".

Anyway at the end of the day I am more comfortable with Fluxbox and my customized menu.

A Solid Move by RH
by Bill Sheehan on Mon 16th Sep 2002 16:22 UTC

I'm running RedHat Null with KDE as my default desktop and Keramik patches to give me a transparent panel (I just don't like a taskbar that looks like a piece of tape on the bottom bit of the screen). My email is Evolution and my web browser is Konqueror. It All Just Works.

My only problem is making up my mind between RedHat 8.0, SuSE 8.1, or Gentoo 1.4. It's an embarrassment of riches!

-- Bill

Re: blah
by Fooks on Mon 16th Sep 2002 16:35 UTC

COMPANIES MAKE MONEY WITH MY SOFTWARE THAT I WORKED FOR MONTHS ON. ALL I GET IS A WARM FART INTO MY FACE. I DRIVE A FUCKING OLD MUSTANG 79', WHILE SUN EMPLOYEES ARE DRIVING A BIG NEW MERCEDES OR BMW. I LIVE IN A 2 ROOMS APPARTMENT AND CARE WHERE TO GET THE MONEY FOR THE NEXT MONTH, WHILE SUN PEOPLE HAVE A NICE 8-10 ROOMS HOUSE. I AM STUPID BECAUSE I WORK FOR FREE.

Yup, that's what happens when you release your code under the BSD license!

-fooks

Re: blah
by bytes256 on Mon 16th Sep 2002 17:08 UTC

ya know...call me crazy but i'd kinda like the idea that my code is good enough for a corporation to use and would be paid for my effort with pride

anyhow...

fooks...what the fuck does that have to do with the BSD license?

same damn thing can (and does) happen with GPL stuff...Gnome is GPL...Linux is GPL...who makes the money from this stuff?

'nuff said

-bytes256

Stop complaining ...
by Anonymous on Mon 16th Sep 2002 17:21 UTC

here are the pics

[ http://dot.kde.org/1030073479/1030141416/ ]

RedHat is trying to unify the dock, etc... to a common look. I personally don't like this but I understand why they are doing this.

RE: Icons
by Hmmm on Mon 16th Sep 2002 17:35 UTC

> http://jimmac.musichall.cz/

I found the old style icon there, but not the new style 'null' version...

Is it available anywhere else?

Branding strategy and other things
by Cesar Cardoso on Mon 16th Sep 2002 18:08 UTC

1)
.rant
I'm REALLY fed up with the fact that any discussion about KDE && (RedHat ||
GNOME) seems to attract a lot of trolls bitching their childish trolling
arguments. Even worse, some of them are KDE developers. Shame on them.
.endrant

2)A bit of facts about KDE/GNOME usage:

Default desktop environment of selected `commercial' Linux distros (UnitedLinux memebers
were treated as one entity):
GNOME(1) - RedHat
KDE(4) - Lycoris, ELX, Lindows, UnitedLinux (I can infere this, as everybody is
aware that SuSE is doing the technical job of the distro)
Both - Mandrake (at least they're heading to this)

Of the 4 KDE defaulters, 3 use it EXCLUSIVELY (the "Linux desktop for dummies
trio").

3) John Blink goes straight to the point:

> It is common for an OS to be defined by it GUI.
> When you looked at computer monitor, Redhat doesn't want you two think it is just
> another linux running KDE or Gnome, they want you to think it is a computer running
> Redhat Linux.

Just as Apple wants you to look at a computer monitor and identify a MacOS, or
Microsoft wants you to look at a monitor and identify a Windows.

And now everything makes sense. The why of Apple having set up a "cease and desist"
letters factory. The why of Microsoft having using the same desktop metaphor on
their PocketPC OS. The Unix GUI wars.

CDE is the default GUI for the closed-source *nix. But you can easily identify the SGI
Irix desktop from, say, Sun Solaris desktop or IBM AIX desktop.

Default UI are part of a branding strategy, and that includes corporate image nowadays.
That's why Apple website has an Aqua look, or why Microsoft's has a Luna look. Apple
even changed their logo!

RedHat is doing the right thing to a company that wants to go to corporate battlefield
arena. This branding strategy is important for MIS managers, CIOs and so on. For power
users, isn't important.

Re: Icons
by Cesar Cardoso on Mon 16th Sep 2002 18:10 UTC

>I found the old style icon there, but not the new style
>'null' version...
>Is it available anywhere else?

`redhat-artwork' RPM on your nearest RH mirror

Re: Icons
by Hmmm on Mon 16th Sep 2002 18:25 UTC

> `redhat-artwork' RPM on your nearest RH mirror

I don't use linux, so i don't think I can open RPMs?

Null screen shots
by Bascule on Mon 16th Sep 2002 18:29 UTC

here are the pics

[ http://dot.kde.org/1030073479/1030141416/ ]


Aiee, I'm sorry, but ugly ugly ugly...

Re: Null screen shots
by bytes256 on Mon 16th Sep 2002 19:42 UTC

Aiee, I'm sorry, but ugly ugly ugly...

and the Business world (which Red Hat is courting) is all about prettiness aren't they

what red hat is going for are things that business world wants...like consistency and efficiency...two completely different looking sets of desktop apps kinda kills consistency...and pretty Aqua and Luna-style graphics kinda kill efficiency

if you're a power user...well too bad Red Hat isn't courting you and they know that you are going to change the defaults anyway

-bytes256

Re: Icons ...
by chimera on Mon 16th Sep 2002 20:06 UTC

> I don't use linux, so i don't think I can open RPMs?

http://www.gnome.org/~aldug/gnome2/files/redhat-artwork-0.29.tar.gz

Gnome/Kde attitudes
by redtux on Mon 16th Sep 2002 20:41 UTC

I find it very ineteresting the difference in attitudes to this between gnome and KDE users

On gnomedesktop.org and gnomesupport.org we discussed this when the issue first came up. Basically our feeling was we were not totally happy that a lot of the nice things about gnome2 were changed but RH's changes can be very easily justified.

On the other hand KDEs reaction seems to be on the lines of "how dare RH mess with KDE - they have no right" along with very hosttile attitudes towards RH in general.

BTW - OT - I find it interesting that Mandrake is going more towards gtk now (eg their config tools now depend on gtk not QT now)

bloat
by yuri on Mon 16th Sep 2002 20:57 UTC

[quote]
and not in line with where linux excels. Linux will never be a desktop OS, at least in the vane of the M$ products. As opposed to focusing on these two slow memory hogging windowmanagers, we should turn our attention to (and support) lightweight and functional managers.

I used KDE for about two years and dumped it because of bloat. I used GOME for about 1 year and dumped it because of bloat. Now I use one of several nice lightweight desktops and I am a happy camper. Linux will never win over those M$ desktop users and I am sick of getting sucked into the battle of those that try.
[quote]


i completely agree. linux works great, xwindows is great, but unfortunately the whole xwindows world is a bloat. you have qt, gnome, kde, and whatever else... just wish xwindows defined some sort of a standart for desktop ui (i know, its not what xwindows is). i miss beos.

confused
by Roy on Mon 16th Sep 2002 22:17 UTC

I don't understand why there is a need to make the KDE and Gnome desktops behave in the same way. If consistency is RedHats goal, why bother providing two environments. You can run Gnome applications under KDE (with Gnome libraries) and you can run KDE applications under Gnome (with KDE libraries). Why shouldn't they just pick one desktop. That way they can put all their effort into fixing a single desktop vs. fixing two.

RE: confused
by Eugenia on Mon 16th Sep 2002 22:50 UTC

>Why shouldn't they just pick one desktop.

Personally, I think they should only offer one desktop, but with the ability to run software from both toolkits, but the software should be consistant throghout their usage (same shortcuts, looks etc).
On the other hand, even if they only wanted to include Gnome, by including the QT and KDE libs and apps, it won't be more than 3-4 MB of CD space to include the rest of the KDE. So, it does not really hurting them to have the whole of KDE there! Today, KDE users are more than Gnome's, so by having the rest of KDE there, it's a good strategy.

linux...
by Kevin on Mon 16th Sep 2002 23:34 UTC

I have personally found Linux Running X to be horribly unresponsive and ugly.... just my opinion

Re: Icons
by Hmmm on Mon 16th Sep 2002 23:38 UTC

> By chimera (IP: ---.gliwice.sdi.tpnet.pl) - Posted on 2002-> 09-16 20:06:39

> I don't use linux, so i don't think I can open RPMs?

> http://www.gnome.org/~aldug/gnome2/files/redhat-artwork-> 0.29.tar.gz

Thanks!

reply to kevin
by jbolden1517 on Tue 17th Sep 2002 00:19 UTC

I have personally found Linux Running X to be horribly unresponsive and ugly.... just my opinion

Try a lighter weight window manager like windowmaker. If that doesn't solve the problem (and you are on at least a pentium system) then I'd suggest your X properly configured.

As for ugly shopping for a window manager should fix that too http://www.plig.org/xwinman/

Try SuSE 8.1 Instead it ROCKS!!!
by Mario on Tue 17th Sep 2002 01:49 UTC

I've tried it ona friend's computer and it is absolutely great!

...
by rajan r on Tue 17th Sep 2002 02:20 UTC

Anonymous: I think that Redhat should ship with KDE exclusively and include the libraries necessary to run GTK apps since KDE is more user friendly.

It doesn't matter. If you seen what Red Hat had done with GNOME, how much more user friendly can KDE get compared to KDE. Yeah, default KDE is much more user friendly than default GNOME 2, but RH is not about defaults here.

Besides, I know no company that would throw away millions of dollars in investment just because a competiting project just got better. GNOME on the usablity front is moving faster than KDE is.

linux_baby: Redhat NULL is is a great effort. I would say is a huge effort in the right direction, and don't be surprised if Redhat gets even more users.

Well, they got two, Spark and me. And if Gentoo doesn't pleases her highness, make that 3 (Eugenia). :-). I found all those people bashing RH and Null never actually used it.

For me, having that AA fonts is worth the effort. But this is the first distro that properly targets the corporate desktop.

And because of that, more users :-P

bytes256: same damn thing can (and does) happen with GPL stuff...Gnome is GPL...Linux is GPL...who makes the money from this stuff?

Practically no one :-P

Cesar Cardoso: KDE(4) - Lycoris, ELX, Lindows, UnitedLinux (I can infere this, as everybody is
aware that SuSE is doing the technical job of the distro)


Lycoris, ELX, Lindows aren't major desktop distros. There are many GNOME only distros available. Like Icepack Linux that got a good ZDnet review (http://www.icepack-linux.com). Besides, the first three distributions you mentioned are bad ripoffs of Windows, and did absolutely nothing to get the corporate desktop. The consumer desktop on the other hand: little effect have they done so far.

UnitedLinux and SuSE target is the enterprise back end. SuSE once targeted the desktop, but now its main focus is with the back end. It is rather amusing to see you tell that KDE is the default deskop of UL when UL isn't released yet.

Besides, it doesn't matter what desktop you choose. The desktop is one of the many components for you to get to the corporate desktop. People don't care what desktop you choose..... only geeks care about that. they care how good your distro is, how good you support is, and how good your pricing is.

Bascule: Aiee, I'm sorry, but ugly ugly ugly...

Your personal choice. But it is looks very professional, and very nice to me. Perhaps it is because of the ugly KDE icons used that doesn't blend with the theme.

redtux: BTW - OT - I find it interesting that Mandrake is going more towards gtk now (eg their config tools now depend on gtk not QT now)

Their config tools have always been GTK+ ever since they started adopting KDE 2. They use Perl mostly for their config tools, and you should know there aren't any bindings for Perl ready yet.

Mandrake config
by redtux on Tue 17th Sep 2002 03:34 UTC

Didn't realise it went back that far - I know when I used 7.0 for a while it used qt for the configs (wouldn't let me wipe all of KDE/QT)

(...)^2
by Cesar Cardoso on Tue 17th Sep 2002 03:36 UTC

About three statements of rajan_r:

> Well, they got two, Spark and me. And if Gentoo doesn't pleases her highness, make that 3 (Eugenia). :-)

Count 4 ;) Maybe 5, 6, 7, 10s? :-)))

> Lycoris, ELX, Lindows aren't major desktop distros.

I know there are GNOME-only distros out there, as I know there are more KDE-only distros out there, Distrowatch and LWN.net is always remembering us ;)
But Lycoris, ELX and (mostly) Lindows have a good PR/hype machine, that's why I put them. (There's also Xandros)

> It is rather amusing to see you tell that KDE is the default deskop of UL when UL isn't released yet.

Given the fact that 3/4 of ULers are KDE proponents (SuSE, SCOCaldera and Conectiva) and the fact that SuSE is leading the tem technically, so I could infere this ;)

Re: to bytes256...
by Anonymous on Tue 17th Sep 2002 03:49 UTC

--quoted by bytes256--
fooks...what the fuck does that have to do with the BSD license?
--/quoted by bytes256--

Frankly, do you know what BSD license is? I suggest you to learn more about BSD license, right before you threw your big dirty mouth in here.

When you release any source code of compile apps under BSD license, then the company can get and modify then sell it without have to release the source code, but just keep the credits. In the GPL license, you MUST release the source code if you have modified it.

...
by rajan r on Tue 17th Sep 2002 05:58 UTC

But Lycoris, ELX and (mostly) Lindows have a good PR/hype machine, that's why I put them. (There's also Xandros)

So what? Most companies and users don't buy something because of the hype in the media of an community they aren't (yet) a part of.

Asks an average Joe, he would probably never heard of the three "hype making" distros, but there would be a higher possiblity of him hearing about Red Hat.

Given the fact that 3/4 of ULers are KDE proponents (SuSE, SCOCaldera and Conectiva) and the fact that SuSE is leading the tem technically, so I could infere this ;)

But it is rather unfortunate that 2/3 of the KDE proponents aren't focused on the desktop anymore....

Don't get me wrong here, I'm a KDE user, I'm happy with KDE, I'm in fact pro-KDE. But I'm having trouble understanding why Red Hat is in the wrongs because it choosed GNOME. KDE had a head start to GNOME. And heck, if GNOME didn't start off with GTK+ 1, they would be closer to KDE. But in my opinion, it doesn't matter what desktop you choose in your distro now.

Anonymous: When you release any source code of compile apps under BSD license, then the company can get and modify then sell it without have to release the source code, but just keep the credits.

Wrong. The deviration work must have the copyright sign on their source code, regardless of what license it is under. No credit need to be given. In fact, there is an advertising clause that limits the amount of credit one can give.

Re: (...)^2
by rajan r on Tue 17th Sep 2002 07:01 UTC

Besides, I forgot to mention. Red Hat is doing a much better job in getting to the desktop that any of the KDE supporting distros out there. Does Lindows, Xandros, Lycoris and ELX offers anything compelling against Red Hat for the corporate desktop?

Trust me, give it a few years, Red Hat would be the dominant desktop player. If they aren't, it would be some other company going the same direction as they are, only doing what they do better.

So, my conclusion is that it doesn't matter whether Red Hat uses GNOME or KDE. Red Hat wouldn't gain a significant amount of users if they choosed KDE, they wouldn't also otherwise.

Besides, it is interesting to note that the three Windows clones (Lindows, ELX and Lycoris), choose KDE because it is more Windows-like than GNOME, giving them less work....

Re: to rajan r
by Anonymous on Tue 17th Sep 2002 07:38 UTC

--quoted by rajan r--
Wrong. The deviration work must have the copyright sign on their source code, regardless of what license it is under. No credit need to be given. In fact, there is an advertising clause that limits the amount of credit one can give.
--/quoted by rajan r--

Yes, that's what I mean.. I should have said copyright instead credit for the better word. English isn't my native language, but thanks for point out to correction my post. ;)

Re: Re: to rajan r
by rajan r on Tue 17th Sep 2002 09:44 UTC

No prob. I know the BSD license like the back of my hand because if ever I release any of my software, which is years to come, I would choose it :-)

Re: to bytes256...
by bytes256 on Tue 17th Sep 2002 13:11 UTC

ummm...first of all i know the BSD license very well...b/c that's all i have ever and would ever release software under

don't believe me...

go here http://dlhttpd.sf.net/

i suggest you read the BSD license again you moron
if someone derives any code from BSD licensed software...they gotta give credit to the original author...yeah they can take your code and make money with it...but how the hell is that different than GPL? ever heard of oh i dunno RED HAT? yeah they make some money off of GPLed software...which was my original point...open source license doesn't matter in that regard...the reason to pick a certain license over another tends to be about philosophy...personally i find the GPL too restrictive to work with...BSD is the most compatible license out there short of Public Domain (which leaves you open to potential legal issues since with public domain you do not release yourself from implied warranties)...and yeah you can take my code and make a closed source proprietary product with it...but you can just as easily incorporate it into a GPL codebase or whatever else you might want to do with it...

another thing that pisses me off about you is that you don't even have the balls to post with a handle

argggggggggggggggggghhhh anonymous BSD trolling cowards

Re: bytes256
by Andrew on Tue 17th Sep 2002 13:16 UTC

I was under the impression that with the BSD license your work code be taken, modified, and released closed source. Is that true? If so it doesn't really seem in the spirit of the general Open Source Community.

Re: Andrew
by bytes256 on Tue 17th Sep 2002 13:34 UTC

this is true...with a BSD license your code can be used for anything and that's why i like it...the only real obligations that a user of code has is to display your copyright somewhere like in an about box or a splash screen

for this reason, BSD and similar licenses are the most Open...and thus it is still in the spirit of the open source community because there are essentially no restrictions on the source code...you can do whatever you want with it

it is not in the spirit of Free Software as Richard Stallman would tell you...but i don't personally agree with Mr. Stallman

-bytes256

bytes256...
by rajan r on Tue 17th Sep 2002 14:19 UTC

this is true...with a BSD license your code can be used for anything and that's why i like it...the only real obligations that a user of code has is to display your copyright somewhere like in an about box or a splash screen

Hmmmm... here's a template copy of the BSD license:

Copyright (c) <YEAR>, <OWNER>
All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

- Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
- Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
- Neither the name of the <ORGANIZATION> nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

No where in the license is it mention that the copyright notice must be present in the form of a spalsh screen or an about box. You have to mention the copyright in all the documentation and source code.

Though it would be nice if they do make the copyright notice present in the form of a splash screen and/or about box :-)

But because of clause #2 is probably the reason why I wouldn't use a pure BSD license, but rather a deviration of it. :-)

Re: Re: bytes256
by rajan r on Tue 17th Sep 2002 14:22 UTC

Andrew: I was under the impression that with the BSD license your work code be taken, modified, and released closed source. Is that true? If so it doesn't really seem in the spirit of the general Open Source Community.

Suggested reading: http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php

Open Source isn't Free Software. Free Software is from RMS/FSF. Open Source spirit is when a software is developed openly using a license approved by the OSI, and the source code being freely available. Free Software is where the source code would always be present in any deviration work, in a manner where forks could happen.

Understand?

(...)^3
by Cesar Cardoso on Tue 17th Sep 2002 14:29 UTC

> But it is rather unfortunate that 2/3 of the KDE proponents aren't focused on the desktop anymore....

This is bad. Caldera once made a good job on trying to make a business desktop, but lost itself.

> But I'm having trouble understanding why Red Hat is in the wrongs because it choosed GNOME.

rajan, I"m a happy GNOME user. I moved myself to GNOME 2 as soon as I could.

But I want both GNOME and KDE to thrive, and I sincerely would prefer the KDE team working on improving their environment rather than trolling or bitching - I think KDE 3 is disappointing, albeit KDE 2 was a great advance.

Re: (...)^3
by rajan r on Tue 17th Sep 2002 14:33 UTC

But I want both GNOME and KDE to thrive, and I sincerely would prefer the KDE team working on improving their environment rather than trolling or bitching - I think KDE 3 is disappointing, albeit KDE 2 was a great advance.

I think KDE 3.0 is a great product. Yeah, it doesn't contain a rewrite, nor does it come with a completely different UI, but for me, a great product is not all that...

Free Software / Open Source
by Spark on Tue 17th Sep 2002 14:47 UTC

Well, I don't think it's very smart to say "I would always use this or that license for my software". To a degree this simply depends on what you want to do. For example a Mozilla released under BSD wouldn't be a good idea. Some company could take the code (like Microsoft) and create Internet Explorer 7, that can do everything that Mozilla can and even more. Result would be that Mozilla wouldn't have the slightest chance to compete with IE.
The same applies to operating systems. Just look at FreeBSD, will it ever become popular? I can hardly imagine. Apple just took the code as a base for a new operating system, how could FreeBSD ever compete with this? No chance. This doesn't matter if you only care for improving computing in general, but it will always live in the shadow of proprietory software.
Free Software as in RMS isn't just about improving computing, it's about competing against proprietory software. And the only way to compete is to play fair by fair. "I can't use your code, you can't use my code. You can use my code, if I can use your code".


"Open Source spirit is when a software is developed openly using a license approved by the OSI, and the source code being freely available. Free Software is where the source code would always be present in any deviration work"

Actually I don't see any difference in the philosophies. Look at the third point of the OSI definition:

"3. Derived Works

The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software."

Combine this with the 1. and 2. point (source must be included and freely distributable) and you get exactly what the GPL is. Of course the OSI also includes licenses by the BSD, but you will also find this at gnu.org as a Free Software license. While Stallman thinks that GPL-style is superior in most cases (which I agree with), he completely aknowledges that BSD code is free and a gift to everybody (unfortunatly also to Stallman's enemies, that's probably why he doesn't love it ;) ).

So although many people confuse this constantly (stating YaST would be Open Source, etc), it is actually not true. There is no technical difference between Open Source and Free Software, the only difference is the term and what advantage is presented to the people. Open Source is about
pushing the bazaar development model and advantages like enhanced security to convince companies to release or develop their software as Open Source. The term Free Software makes it more clear that the freedom of software is the important thing.

Personally, I think it doesn't matter if you are a Open Source or a Free Software person (that's why I use both terms whenever I feel like it). The only thing that matters is that we are pro Open Source/ Free Software, which is basically the same. The reason _why_ we support it should be everyone's choice. Some people will enjoy the security, some the freedom to choose what they like, others simply the fact that everything comes for free, etc. We shouldn't argue about our motives, if we basically all want the same (of course I'm only talking about Open Source/ Free Software people now ;) ).

RE: Spark
by Andrew on Tue 17th Sep 2002 15:01 UTC

I pretty much agree word for word with your assessment of the uses of the licenses, pros and cons etc. If you care about the reciprocal nature of most OSS then the BSD license may not be for you.

Re: Spark
by bytes256 on Tue 17th Sep 2002 15:19 UTC

The same applies to operating systems. Just look at FreeBSD, will it ever become popular? I can hardly imagine. Apple just took the code as a base for a new operating system, how could FreeBSD ever compete with this? No chance. This doesn't matter if you only care for improving computing in general, but it will always live in the shadow of proprietory software.

FreeBSD and Mac OS X have different goals...FreeBSD is very server oriented...with workstation capabilities often an afterthought (it doesn't even include sound card support in the default kernel)...and for this reason FreeBSD can compete with Mac OS X...different areas of focus

and i would definitely have to disagree that BSD licenses will limit your popularity...look at the X Window System...MIT License which is BSD with a different wording...X dominated over other windowing systems largely due to its non-restrictive license...if it had been GPLed instead, do you seriously think that Sun and SGI and all the other big iron UNIX vendors would be using it today instead of NeWS?

the lack of popularity of FreeBSD is all about its focus...it doesn't give a shit about joe user

quite frankly, there is a HUGE difference between Free Software and Open Source...Open Source is about choice...Free Software is about control...kinda counter-intuitive...but you can thank Mr. Stallman for that

-bytes256

Re: Re: Spark
by Dekkard on Wed 18th Sep 2002 09:05 UTC

quite frankly, there is a HUGE difference between Free Software and Open Source...Open Source is about choice...Free Software is about control...kinda counter-intuitive...but you can thank Mr. Stallman for that

Not only control, but true competence between products. If you can see the changes in the source that another programmer / company did to your code, it's hard to make it worse, you can only improve it. Unlike BSD license, you have the guarantee the code won't go back, and all the advantages and improvements can be merged in the original application. Then it's the advantage to the buyer: the source code will always be there, ready to be changed if necessary, by him or someone he is ready to pay.

Anyway, "Free" applies to software freedom, not the freedom of the programmer, as in the source can't be "closed" and can be modified freely.

SuSE 8.1 Rulez! :)
by SuSE Great FAN on Wed 18th Sep 2002 09:40 UTC

SuSE 8.1 Rulez! ;)
October 7th is the time!
SuSE Linux is the thing!