Submitted by Just over a year ago, Tim Butler wrote an article which outlined why he thought the GNOME Project was clearly the free software desktop project with the best vision of the future. KDE’s Appeal Project, which has been brewing for some time now, looks to a different set of issues that need solving and has some very smart minds at work on solving those problems. In a few words, KDE’s got some of “that vision thing” too, according to Tim.
who the hell is Timothy R. Butler and who cares what he thinks about KDE vs Gnome?
Oh, you’re not trolling.
That aside, the articles don’t present anything particularly new. Both Gnome and KDE have serious UI flaws that desperately need to be addressed, it’s just that KDE has more of them. Don’t get me wrong, I’m happy with my Gnome desktop, but, in my opinion, it could and should be a lot better. I am glad to see that at least some people are starting to see the light over in the KDE camp, but they still have a lot of work to do to catch up to Gnome.
-bytecoder
In KDE 4, will Kdesktop/Kicker/etc all essentially become superkaramba widgets?
No. A new kind of widget (different than superkaramba by quite a bit) will be introduced which instead of living on your desktop or in a second layer (like Dashboard), can live anywhere. Instead of panel applets, these widgets will go in your panel. Instead of karamba, the widgets. The widgets will apparently descend from both the [super]karamba and the KPanelApplet codebases. Check out the following links:
http://aseigo.bddf.ca/cms/1267
http://kde-artists.org/main/component/option,com_smf/Itemid,48/expv…
http://plasma.bddf.ca/dms/1/21_209_kicker4transparentfloatingexpa.g…
http://plasma.bddf.ca/cms/1069
(Full Disclosure: I am not a Plasma developer. I don’t even really like KDE. I just like posting helpful links.)
This is only opinion, no matter what anyone says about Gnome or KDE, is it only opinion, not facts. I myself am KDE only, there’s a couple things I’d like to change in the K menu, but overall, very well liked. For Gnome, I don’t like the design, don’t like the layout, don’t like the windows manager, don’t like the menus for organization and functionality. If I could, I would do a complete overall of Gnome without the time consuming recompilation from source. I’m talking about changing the dseign, changing the look and feel, changing the layout, and especially changing the menus. All this being said, I am happy with KDE, but that’s my opinion, for my use. You a free to select the desktop of your choice, and if you are blessed with programming knowledge, are able to change the things you don’t like about each desktop environment from the source up. So to me, this is fanfare, or opinion at least. Myself, I would like to stick with more news and/or information, but NEVER “who has it right”. So I think this article is invalid, just like my statement saying KDE has it correct is also invalid. You have your justly opinion, and I justly so have my own opinion. So, whichever, let’s just stick with using the desktop environment that each person desires to use for their own use, and leave it at that, k folks?!
You’re right on the mark re KDE. How anyone can work in Gnome after having been exposed to KDE is beyond me.
Funny thing is, I dislike KDE for precisely the same reasons as he dislikes GNOME. IMO, for the most part, GNOME has it right. To me, KDE feels like one of those swiss army knives that are cool but you end up poking yourself with no matter how you hold it. It just doesn’t work the way I work or feel comfortable. If I didn’t have GNOME, I’d use XFCE (or even FVWM).
To me, this is the key reason why KDE and GNOME would still exist as distinct projects, even if KDE switched to Gtk+ or GNOME switched to an LGPLed Qt (assuming TrollTech changed its business model). People’s tastes are different and remain so.
Short answear. He’s a corporate tool who uses OfB.biz as a soapbox to smear KDE from. No need to read his latest creation, more of the same no doubt.
As we say in French, Ca va troller chéri…
Yep.
In fact it was more longer that i think it would be. Salade de troll et eau chaude à tous les étages…
Read this interview with Aaron Seigo for more explanation: http://www.linux-mag.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=…
Someone here appears to be fond of this idiot. Or is it just you gnome-nuts defending your hero? Just wait, when he decides he can make a buck from stabbing you in the back, gnome will be defamed as well..
If you bothered to read the article, he’s saying nice things about KDE. Furthermore, even in his first article he kept his arguments against KDE logical, sound, and well-reasoned. He never “defamed” KDE in either of the articles. Yay for trolls!
“kept his arguments against KDE logical, sound, and well-reasoned.”
Sound and well reasoned: like that KDE should drop QT… No, he spread a whole lot of bullshit about gpl and qt, and was quite throughly debunked, iirc. And if he now says nice things about KDE, well so much for his credibility, you know you can’t have things both ways.. Either it’s nice or it’s crap, you can’t change your mind every other two weeks.
Yay for idiots with the attention span of a goldfish.
Ah, yes. Thoroughly debunked — as in, I gave my opinion, others gave their opinions and that was that. Almost everyone who tried to debunk me missed my points and debunked old complaints that were not the ones I presented (one of the few that seemed on a better track, Eric Laffoon of KDE e.V., I provided an op-ed space for).
Note that I never said I didn’t like KDE, I said I didn’t like the situation with Qt. This article deals with something else from either my current feelings about KDE3 or Qt, it deals with Plasma, which has to do with KDE 4.
> I never said I didn’t like KDE, I said I didn’t like
> the situation with Qt.
I seriously doubt that Trolltech gives a damn what you think about the situation with Qt or not. It’s them who spent hours on the code, it’s them who pay their employees, it’s them who decide what they do with the code. No offense but you are the last person in the line of people and ventures who have the right to say anything about what Trolltech has or has not to do with Qt.
Well, that would be true if I was telling Trolltech what to do. If you had read my articles, you’d see that’s not the case. My job is to write for system administrators and explain the ups and downs of adopting technologies. In July, I looked at problems with Qt that I believed existed (let’s not debate Qt licensing again on this very different post, ok?); if I believe Qt has problems that will impact the future of KDE, that is very much of interest to my readers. Now, this week, I took a look at a different angle — that of innovation, and how KDE’s new ideas could very much help KDE in the future.
Once you understand the role of the media in reporting on any subject (to inform outsiders, not insiders like the Trolltech developers themselves), then my commentaries “purpose” will become clear.
> If I believe Qt has problems that will impact the
> future of KDE, that is very much of interest to my
> readers.
Yeah but there are no problems with Qt, so why did you write your last few articles? If you are telling me to read your articles more carefully then allow me to throw the gloves back to you. I could easily say that if you had spent time reading KDE’s pages more carefully then you would have stepped over the Trolltech vs. KDE agreement that in case something happens that Qt is being licensed under BSD, so in any ways it will continue to exist. KDE is is one of the major showpieces for Trolltech and Qt, so why killing this best free marketing argument?
OK, I’ll humor you. Lots of people reminded me of the KDE Free Qt Foundation, but that has nothing to do with my point. My point was about commercial development, the need KDE has to keep the ability for people to develop commercial software on KDE, and hence the necessary ties to Trolltech. The foundation guarantees the future of the Free Software version of Qt, should it ever be discontinued by Trolltech, but does not guarantee the commercial version will always be reasonably priced, etc., etc. If the GPL’ed version sticks around, but the commercial licenses went up to $20k per developer plus royalties, the Foundation would still fail to kick in.
Hence, KDE is beholden to work with Trolltech, rather than fork the GPL version, etc., etc. Obviously given the length of my argument in the articles, I’ve omitted a lot of points by summing it up here, but the gist is that the Foundation is great but irrelevant to my point. I could have said that in my column, but I really didn’t think so many people would fail to see how the Foundation does not apply to what I said.
Remember: I was a serious KDE user for years, I still follow it closely and I was even involved with some KDE projects for awhile — until time constrants did not permit that any longer — so I’m not ignorant on such things.
But, returning to the present article, that doesn’t mean I don’t think KDE is really great on many fronts. My job is not to be one sided, but to report from all useful angles, hence I am taking the opportunity to give KDE some positive words as well.
Ok, I promised I’d stop, but this “chicken little” argument is just too stupid and pops up far to often..
If the GPL’ed version sticks around, but the commercial licenses went up to $20k per developer plus royalties, the Foundation would still fail to kick in.
Why not make that a million when you are at it? I’ll tell you something. “Nothing is worth more than someone is willing to pay for it.” I’m sure Trolltech knows that as well. Think about it. Consider what would happen to a company that makes its products prohibitively expensive.
While you are thinking you might want to ponder the fate of motif. Also think about the origins of lesstif, and wether such a thing could/would happen again, oss or proprietary.
My point was about commercial development,
You have no clue about commercial development whatsoever. Your arguments are the usual debunked, weak rubbish coming from a basement programmer whinging about anything he has to pay license fees for. Here’s the cluestick – proper developers pay for development tools, and if they are to move desktop Linux they want to see them. If they’re not there, forget it, no matter how cheap they are.
You’re also whinging about something that there is currently no market for, nor will there ever be without the quality of development tools needed.
the need KDE has to keep the ability for people to develop commercial software on KDE, and hence the necessary ties to Trolltech.
And there’s nothing stopping you. You can easily integrate GTK with KDE and Qt in the same way as GTK is integrated on Windows. GTK is LGPL licensed, and the last I read it is GPL compatible, so you can use it for exactly what you describe totally legally. That’s right – you will actually be able to write KDE applications in the future with GTK without having to be tied to Trolltech at all. People will pay for Qt because they see the benefits.
but does not guarantee the commercial version will always be reasonably priced, etc., etc. If the GPL’ed version sticks around, but the commercial licenses went up to $20k per developer
Irrelevant. See my comments above. It would not stop people wanting to develop proprietary KDE software with other free tools like GTK, or even Mono or Java, and it would not stop KDE development because Qt would still have to be GPL’d. Those who want to pay Trolltech still can, and if enough people don’t want to then Trolltech by the simple virtue of economics would be forced into an about-turn. That’s up to Trolltech and their customers – no one else.
Proprietary desktop Linux and KDE development is all a question of demand, and at the moment, the same for Gnome, it’s practically non-existant. If demand increases, you’ll see it happen.
Developing for KDE does not mean Qt everwhere, and what’s important for KDE is that the foundation guarantees future KDE development.
plus royalties
There are no royalties for Qt, and another inaccuracy.
Hence, KDE is beholden to work with Trolltech, rather than fork the GPL version
Errr, right. KDE chose Qt in a sensible manner for their project because they felt they needed the right development tools to develop an open source desktop without going around the houses several hundred times. They’ve been proved right. KDE is a free, open source desktop used to get work and tasks done, not to primarily act as a free (no cost) platform for proprietary developers.
This I find funny. Just because a piece of software is GPL’d and you can’t (directly anyway) build proprietary software right on top of it, that doesn’t mean that software is useless and you can’t get tasks done with it. That is, afterall, the primary function of any software.
I’ve omitted a lot of points by summing it up here, but the gist is that the Foundation is great but irrelevant to my point.
And your point can be summed up as ‘I want to develop for nothing’, which is the usual bedroom programmer’s rant. I’ll say it again to you – you have no clue about software development, commercial or otherwise.
I find all this proprietary development talk really, really, really hilariously funny though. These are the very same people who want to whinge about allowing proprietary development, shareware and these mythical zero-cash small development shops they bang on about, and then they’ll stamp their feet about companies like Zeroc (http://www.zeroc.com/) and Trolltech over licensing when they try to make a sensible, open source business for themselves. And what would happen if a proprietary bit of software became extremely popular and everyone used it? That’s right. These a***holes will want to copy it, reverse engineer it and make an open source version which allows proprietary development!!
Imagine a situation where the Linux kernel was LGPL’d. We’d have a situation where we’d have a very small nucleus of kernel development and every Tom, Dick and Harry would be bolting their crap proprietary drivers and extensions on to it. Does anyone think that would be a good idea? Would anyone want to see that? Does anyone think we would have the breadth of open sourced drivers we have in the kernel today without the obligations of the GPL to do that? No.
It is perfectly sensible just to keep as much as possible open sourced and free to begin with, which is what the GPL guarantees. Like the Linux kernel though, that does not proclude proprietary development in any way on top of that and neither does a GPL’d Qt and KDE (mostly anyway – kdelibs is LGPL’d).
“proper developers pay for development tools, and if they are to move desktop Linux they want to see them. If they’re not there, forget it, no matter how cheap they are. ”
That was just bloody rude and offensive. Apologize.
Being a professional does not automatically make you better than amatuers, and it certainly gives you no right to degrade amatuers and devalue their work by calling them:
“usual debunked, weak rubbish coming from a basement programmer whinging about anything he has to pay license fees for.”
“And what would happen if a proprietary bit of software became extremely popular and everyone used it? That’s right. These a***holes will want to copy it, reverse engineer it and make an open source version which allows proprietary development!!”
Awww, did those basement whingeers (sic) reverse engineer your product? Guess it wasn’t so rough to engineer it then was it
.
Isn’t linux’ module interface lgpl? Otherwise I don’t know how ati and nvidia ship modules legally..
That was just bloody rude and offensive. Apologize.
Err, any developers wanting to develop for Linux want to see proper, adequate development tools, no matter how free or not they are – end of story.
Which part of that did you fail to understand?
Awww, did those basement whingeers (sic) reverse engineer your product? Guess it wasn’t so rough to engineer it then was it
.
No, but you’ve adequately displyed the sort of maturity level I’m talking about ;-).
Being a professional does not automatically make you better than amatuers, and it certainly gives you no right to degrade amatuers and devalue their work by calling them
It does when they come up with the usual stupid comments like Tim Butler has done. I’ll point out the obvious – I didn’t start it.
It is funny you assume I am a programmer, and hence have me pigenholed into a certain programmer mindset. I can work my way around code, to some extent, but I am a writer, not a programmer. So forget your bedroom programmer arguments.
My concern is within the realm I am much more knowledgeable about: system administration. I’ve done work as an IT administrator, and when I do, I don’t look at today or yesterday, I look at tomorrow. Will this product still be around? Even if it is, will another one dominate or at least have a brighter future? In my articles, I addressed the Qt issue from this perspective. I believe — even if you could prove that the Qt issue is not “technically a problem” — that licensing issues are keeping people leery about adopting KDE and hence that is a real concern even if the underlying issue is false.
Now, a few things: first, you cannot build GTK to integrate into KDE like you suggest and actually accomplish anything. If GTK was made to integrate into KDE in a native fashion, it would become dependent on Qt, and if it became dependent on Qt, GTK would become defacto GPL’ed while in that mode, hence you’ve accomplished zip.
Moreover, I did not say Trolltech has royalities, I said they could in the future. Note how I compared the situation of TT and KDE to Microsoft and IBM. Now, I think TT is a lot nicer company than MS, but in the end, shareholders drive a company. If someday KDE was really popular, those shareholders are going to push TT to maximize profits. That cannot happen with a product not run by a single corporation (that is, GTK+). But this is really the wrong thing to be debating on this post, because my article was trying to highlight some good things about KDE, not revisit my Qt concerns, which you clearly still do not grasp (you are making arguments in disagreement, but you aren’t disagreeing with my actual points so much as other peoples’ points).
I would ask this question to the KDE developer or fanboy.
If Qt had been a community effort from the beginning, licensed under something like LGPL or GPL + exceptions, Gnome had never been started (I believe de Icaza has stated that he even sent a couple patches into KDE), and KDE was now the 90% dominant platform on Unix with a couple anklebiters keeping the KDE devs on their toes, would things be better off?
I believe it would. But as is the case now, we have two dominant desktop platforms with roughly the same market share, with one of the platforms dependent on a toolkit that big vendors don’t want to touch, and the other with arguably inferior technology.
And once again, the only reason this issue isn’t brought up more often is because the linux desktop is pretty insignificant at the moment.
I’ll probably always use Linux on my servers, but the days of using it on the desktop are dwindling fast with OSX-x86 coming around. There’s too much factionalization to ever hope to catch up on Windows, much less OSX on the desktop.
What are your criteria for determining an arguably inferior technology? And what makes you think a homogeneous desktop, like the one we have with Windows is better for the evolution of Linux?
Take a look at the pathetic state Windows is in today, is that what you want for Linux? Arguing there should be only one desktop for Linux is synonymous to arguig for one human race. Oh, because too many races lead to conflict and factionalization.
I would ask this question to the KDE developer or fanboy.
*ROTFL*.
and KDE was now the 90% dominant platform on Unix with a couple anklebiters keeping the KDE devs on their toes, would things be better off? I believe it would.
Not really, because without the competition and ankle biting between the two I think any unified desktop would have stagnated and got bogged down in politics. KDE has been better off without all that.
But as is the case now, we have two dominant desktop platforms with roughly the same market share
There is a lot of evidence to cast serious doubt on that.
with one of the platforms dependent on a toolkit that big vendors don’t want to touch
Novell certainly is using Qt in a huge way, and compared to this lot:
http://www.trolltech.com/company/customers.html
(notice the big software vendors in there), Red Hat and Sun are totally meaningless in the grand scheme of software developers worldwide.
but the days of using it on the desktop are dwindling fast with OSX-x86 coming around.
Yer, I’ve alway wanted to build my own x86 box and put OS X on it, or to see OEMs doing that. Oh wait…..
Not really, because without the competition and ankle biting between the two I think any unified desktop would have stagnated and got bogged down in politics. KDE has been better off without all that.
Possibly, but its hurt the overall market penetration of linux on the desktop. There’s no doubt about that. Linux is a kernel, not an operating system. The reason that OSX is so far ahead, and always will be is because they control the whole stack from microkernel on up.
There is a lot of evidence to cast serious doubt on that.
Evidence to cast serious doubt on what?
Novell certainly is using Qt in a huge way, and compared to this lot:
Why did they buy Ximian then?
(notice the big software vendors in there), Red Hat and Sun are totally meaningless in the grand scheme of software developers worldwide.
Which has nothing to do with KDE at all. And there’s the problem. What’s in Qt interests isn’t necessarily in KDE’s interests, but I know you KDE fanboys think that Trolltech are gods and always have the interests of KDE at heart. The same thing can go for RedHat’s defacto ownership of Gnome, but at least Novell has resources. Wake up to the real world fanboy.
Yer, I’ve alway wanted to build my own x86 box and put OS X on it, or to see OEMs doing that. Oh wait…
The developers OSX-x86 versions have already been hacked onto white boxes, but that’s not even the most important point. The important point is dual-triple booting with windows and linux, lower costs, and possible 3rd licensing eventually. You sound scared. I would be to if I had some irrational, emotional attachment to linux on the desktop.
If development had stagnated that would hurt linux on the desktop a whole lot more than having the small confusion of two desktops.
Having multiple tools for the same job is one of the reasons I kept using linux after I saw it; and I imagine there must be some other users who feel the same way.
Evidence to cast serious doubt on what?
The fact that both desktops have equal share of users. Do try reading back through your own comments to follow.
Why did they buy Ximian then?
Because they got conned. Novell didn’t buy Ximian for Gnome, they bought it because Ximian’s VCs needed to get it sold, and they went into Novell and said “Oooh, look we’ve got an open source version of .Net!” Novell had no clue what they were buying, and eventually had to say they bought Ximian ‘for the culture’.
Mind you, I don’t think their purchase of Suse has turned out very well either. Novell have always been a weak company.
The important point is dual-triple booting with windows and linux, lower costs, and possible 3rd licensing eventually.
Oh yer! I can see it now. Lots of people buying totally overpriced x86 Apple boxes (exactly the same situation with PPC now) to triple boot three operating systems! Wow. We’re on to a winner there!
You sound scared.
Do I? Oh dear.
I would be to if I had some irrational, emotional attachment to linux on the desktop.
You have an irrational, emotional attachment to lots of things.
Which has nothing to do with KDE at all. And there’s the problem.
You weren’t talking about KDE – you were talking about Qt usage amongst vendors.
but I know you KDE fanboys think that Trolltech are gods and always have the interests of KDE at heart.
No, but as you’ve said yourself, you need positive commercial and corporate support. Trolltech is certainly providing sensible amounts of that. Somehow, when KDE gets it that’s a bad thing.
The same thing can go for RedHat’s defacto ownership of Gnome
Right…..
but at least Novell has resources.
OK…….
Wake up to the real world fanboy.
And the point is?
“My concern is within the realm I am much more knowledgeable about: system administration. I’ve done work as an IT administrator, and when I do, I don’t look at today or yesterday, I look at tomorrow. Will this product still be around? Even if it is, will another one dominate or at least have a brighter future? In my articles, I addressed the Qt issue from this perspective. I believe — even if you could prove that the Qt issue is not “technically a problem” — that licensing issues are keeping people leery about adopting KDE and hence that is a real concern even if the underlying issue is false. ”
So KDE should make a political decision rather than a technical one, when it comes to technical decisions?? Sounds a bit un-open-source-like to me (after all, the code is gpled so… and I think open source tries to deliver the best technical software available???). Trolltech is playing by the rules on open-source stuff. And it is playing by the market on closed-source stuff. It’s never gonna be a monopoly like MS has, other wise yes this would cause problems. You seem to forget that the only thing that makes prices raise is monopolies, and with java and .net and gtk around… not likely to happen, its not that one big company has a monopoly and abuses it, that all other companies are bad as well. For example: lowering prices might as well maximise the profits. And that one company is in charge of a toolkit isn’t that bad: there’s probably gonna come better code from this company than gtk will ever be, since qt is independant of political choices, where as gtk is not, since multiple companies would like to see their code (something like: we spent money on it, let it not be waisted, probably a thing comming from those shareholders you mentioned???).
But indeed this article was about the positive sides of KDE (I must say I haven’t read your article on qt, I’m just making comments on your and others posts here). So lets all be happy.
Now, I think TT is a lot nicer company than MS, but in the end, shareholders drive a company.
Why don’t you quit the FUD? You’re no good at it.
http://www.trolltech.com/newsroom/investors.html
And so another “chicken little” argument dies. Mythical “Shareholders” aren’t going to make the company do anything stupid against the will of the employees.
I can work my way around code, to some extent, but I am a writer, not a programmer. So forget your bedroom programmer arguments.
You’re consistently arguing about developing for nothing – that’s the bedroom programmer rant that surrounds GTK these days.
Will this product still be around? Even if it is, will another one dominate or at least have a brighter future? In my articles, I addressed the Qt issue from this perspective. I believe — even if you could prove that the Qt issue is not “technically a problem” — that licensing issues are keeping people leery…..
Blah, blah, blah, blah and so forth. Well that’s just trying to spread FUD against Qt (“whether Qt will still be around” etc. – stuff Microsoft does). You’re not backing up your arguments about Qt’s licensing and developing for KDE actually being a problem for people in the real world.
Now, a few things: first, you cannot build GTK to integrate into KDE like you suggest and actually accomplish anything.
Yes you can, and it has already been started. That’s just a cop-out.
If GTK was made to integrate into KDE in a native fashion, it would become dependent on Qt
It would in a KDE context. But GTK would never itself be dependant on Qt, or even KDE. That’s like saying because GTK is ported to Windows it is dependant on Win32 APIs. It isn’t.
GTK would become defacto GPL’ed while in that mode, hence you’ve accomplished zip.
No it wouldn’t become defacto GPL’d at all – that’s just simply bizarre. You’ve pretty much shown your ignorance there. As long as a license is GPL compatible, like the LGPL, you can use GPL software (additionally kdelibs is LGPL as well). It can be done, and it is actually done all the time.
Moreover, I did not say Trolltech has royalities
It’s something that crops up time and again, and is something some people love to infer. Nevertheless, it is still inaccurate and it still will be.
Note how I compared the situation of TT and KDE to Microsoft and IBM.
That’s crap as well, because Microsoft never open sourced their product and Trolltech does not control a whole OS from top to bottom like Microsoft did and does. Trolltech also does not control the KDE community or what it does. That comparison is simply laughable, and perfectly illustrates the strength of your arguments.
If someday KDE was really popular, those shareholders are going to push TT to maximize profits.
Even if that were to happen, KDE will still be able to use Qt for GPL development and developers will be able to use other tools if they wanted. That’s a decision for Trolltech and its customers – not you. Trolltech is also owned by its employees, and because of that set up what you’ve described is not going to happen.
You also paint over the fact that Red Hat is the company that really controls GTK direction, as well as Sun and some people from Novell controlling Gnome. That exists no matter what the license.
That cannot happen with a product not run by a single corporation (that is, GTK+).
KDE is not run by a single corporation and never will be, and your attempts to portray Qt and KDE like Microsoft are getting more and more desperate.
not revisit my Qt concerns, which you clearly still do not grasp
Like everybody who I’ve seen rant about this, you simply live in your own world. Your arguments are itemised above, I’ve replied to them and they are the same consistent rubbish we’ve had for quite a while. You aren’t arguing anything different, as much as your pretend you are.
(you are making arguments in disagreement, but you aren’t disagreeing with my actual points so much as other peoples’ points).
No, I’m afraid those are your points, as much as you like to pretend otherwise. Look at your comments above in your post. They are rants that have cropped up consistently by various people around this subject, and they are still crap. Please don’t try and make it sound as if you have a reasonable argument – you don’t.
“No, but you’ve adequately displyed the sort of maturity level I’m talking about ;-). ”
” I’ll point out the obvious – I didn’t start it.”
Geez, I was gonna vote you down for being inflammatory, but you deserve to have that left up for display.
Callin’ me immature cause I make a joke (I know you were kidding too).
The rude and offensive part was the implication that OSS programmers are basement programmers who like to whine about anything that’s not free ($$) for them. That’s hardly true, and if you knew many OSS developers you’d know better than to make the comment.
> Isn’t linux’ module interface lgpl? Otherwise I
> don’t know how ati and nvidia ship modules legally..
No, there’s no such thing as an LGPLed module interface. An LGPLed layer or wrapper would not help anyway as the combination of GPL + LGPL + proprietary code is not possible if you want to create a derived work(*). The real question is what *is* a derived work.
See http://kerneltrap.org/node/1735 for a discussion and Linus’ view on the issue with NVidia drivers.
(*) The only thing that would help would be an added exception added to the GPL license that allowed certain additional situations. But there’s no such thing in the license of the Linux kernel (which is the GPL).
Isn’t linux’ module interface lgpl? Otherwise I don’t know how ati and nvidia ship modules legally..
No, it is not LGPL, but even if it was, that certainly isn’t the same as LGPLing all of it:
http://linuxdevices.com/articles/AT5041108431.html
and
http://kerneltrap.org/node/1735
See Linus Torvalds’s e-mail and his interesting interpretation, as an aside.
once again, segedunum throws a tantrum whenever someone mentions that Qt being dual-licensed is a liability for KDE.
Remember, if glibc had a similiar licensed scheme, then it would be worthless, but since the linux desktop is still practically non-existant it hasn’t been much of an issue.
You have no clue about commercial development whatsoever. Your arguments are the usual debunked, weak rubbish coming from a basement programmer whinging about anything he has to pay license fees for.
Wait a minute. You’re the open sores developer and you’re calling him a basement programmer? BAhahaa. Nice one kid.
“Wait a minute. You’re the open sores developer and you’re calling him a basement programmer? BAhahaa. Nice one kid.”
No offence but read his posts better, I think it states he’s a professional developer as well.
Besides he’s got a lot of points right (how offensive they might sound). A lot of people using linux, just think of it as a free copy of windows, and all the other programs they use. While that was NOT the main purpose Linus Torvalds created the kernel. There is nothing wrong with closed software as well, worse: without closed software, linux will never get to the main stream (games for example). Open source has its benefits, and if everyone uses it well its the best way. But don’t attack a company who’s playing by the rules the open-source community has made. And don’t attack the community that is using the possibilities given by that company.
Another guy is stating Novel, redhat … aren’t working on kde because qt is from a company and they don’t want to depend on it, meaning: rahter they bring closed source software, and they don’t want to pay for the toolkit, or they want to control the open-source toolkit themselves, mm, which one is to be prefered, a company living from the toolkit controlling the toolkit (meaning they have to bring decend code or they’ll have to close), or different companies trying to control an open source toolkit, and hence bringing code that is nothing more than one hack on top of another, and that has had lots of different political choices, rather than technical ones? (ok, this is a bit rude, but it certainly is like this at some level, and no offence to the gtk people, they do a lot of good work, and they are necessary for the open source community as well).
once again, segedunum throws a tantrum whenever someone mentions that Qt being dual-licensed is a liability for KDE.
And I’ve explained why it’s not – consistently. You’re not going to get it though, but you might in the next eighteen months ;-).
Remember, if glibc had a similiar licensed scheme
It would depend if it was realistic, given the work and maintenance needed on glibc, if it was realistic to license it like that. The open source desktop is a hell of a lot of work, and it needs invesment, particularly in development tools from somewhere. KDE is really starting to prove that particular point now.
Wait a minute. You’re the open sores developer and you’re calling him a basement programmer?
Errrrrm, right….. I’m not an open source developer, unfortunately, but I do exactly the sort of development Tim Butler is trying to promote, and what he’s writing is total and utter bollocks. The point is basement programmers like you and him whinge about developing for nothing. It’s been explained consistently why you’re living in a dream world on that one.
Sorry if you’re a bit frustrated saying the same stuff now, but it isn’t going to get any better :-).
And I’ve explained why it’s not – consistently. You’re not going to get it though, but you might in the next eighteen months ;-).
No, you’ve tried to rationalize a bad license dependancy for KDE in your head because you’re embedded in that “community”. That’s typical, people do it all the time when they can’t think objectively.
18 months? Time doesn’t stand still to wait for KDE. In 18 months Longhorn will be out, OSX will have a new version, and Gnome will be close to 2.18.
It would depend if it was realistic, given the work and maintenance needed on glibc, if it was realistic to license it like that. The open source desktop is a hell of a lot of work, and it needs invesment, particularly in development tools from somewhere. KDE is really starting to prove that particular point now.
That’s interesting that you basically don’t have a problem with a Qt style glibc licenses. “Realistic” in your world translates to Linux being utterly worthless with no corporate sponsorship if that scenario would have ever happened. Once again, you’ve tried to rationalize a bad thing because you’re deep into “the community”
Errrrrm, right….. I’m not an open source developer, unfortunately, but I do exactly the sort of development Tim Butler is trying to promote, and what he’s writing is total and utter bollocks. The point is basement programmers like you and him whinge about developing for nothing. It’s been explained consistently why you’re living in a dream world on that one.
Sorry kid, I was probably writing code professionaly for linux before you did your first mandrake install. http://www.jbmelectronics.com. I don’t think linux is a religion like you people though.
Sorry if you’re a bit frustrated saying the same stuff now, but it isn’t going to get any better :-).
You’re right its not going to get any better for KDE if the linux desktop is ever to not be insignicant. The license issue won’t go away no matter how many tantrums you throw and how much you try to wish it away.
No, you’ve tried to rationalize a bad license dependancy for KDE in your head because you’re embedded in that “community”. That’s typical, people do it all the time when they can’t think objectively.
I’m amused you think so, but you haven’t addressed anything or argued otherwise. That adds up to losing the argument.
In 18 months Longhorn will be out, OSX will have a new version, and Gnome will be close to 2.18.
Yer, I’m really excited.
That’s interesting that you basically don’t have a problem with a Qt style glibc licenses. “Realistic” in your world translates to Linux being utterly worthless with no corporate sponsorship if that scenario would have ever happened.
You still have this extremely strange idea that not only should all this software be free, but that you should be able to develop any kind of software you want with it free as well. Software development still takes time, effort and investment – glibc and other software development doesn’t just happen magically.
No one has a divine right to pay nothing for software, and that reality is going to have to dawn on many people fairly soon.
Once again, you’ve tried to rationalize a bad thing because you’re deep into “the community”
Once again you’ve waved away a perfectly good argument because you have no comeback.
Sorry kid, I was probably writing code professionaly for linux before you did your first mandrake install.
Not particularly interested. Time doesn’t make a good, rational programmer able to make sensible decisions. It depends on the person ;-).
http://www.jbmelectronics.com.
The server times out. True to form anyway.
I don’t think linux is a religion like you people though.
No I don’t, but you do think that licensing and developing everything for nothing is a religion though. As a programmer, if you truly think like that, you are going to get no further in software development than an asthmatic ant with some very heavy shopping(tm), and I don’t particularly care how much experience you say you have.
The license issue won’t go away no matter how many tantrums you throw………..
And it will continue not to be an issue for the reasons I’ve stated. The fact that you don’t want to reply to them, and wave them away as tantrums (ROTFL) is something I cannot do anything about. You could always wait eighteen months and see though ;-).
What is that with the licence??? Can anyone please explain in plain words what is wrong with a company providing good toolkits??? Every programmer I’ve heard that worked with both toolkits agreed that qt is better. Again: it’s gpl, hence all open-source projects don’t have a problem using it. That a company that wants to make money out of it, has to pay for it is more than decent. It looks as making money is a bad thing.
I think it’s odd, anyone is always complaining that companies don’t play by the rules and only try to abuse open-source software, now we’ve got one company that’s actually following the rules, and it’s bad again??? When will it stop? When everyone stops making money? Come on, I think to many people confuse Trolltech with Microsoft, Trolltech doesn’t have a monopoly, and it shouldn’t have, so that’s why gtk’s existence is good. But please stop the ranting about licences, it’s legally completely in order, and it’s exchange of knowledge between the community and companies, I fail to see bad things here. I haven’t seen anyone bring up 1 decent reason why the license sucks. And I’m fairly new into linux, so not really to much into the community, I think. The only thing I can say is: when I work with gnome I feel like I’m working on a 10 year old computer: it looks archaic. Where KDE looks at least decent (though is still not what it should be), but those are my opinions, and might change over time.
GTK applications work as well under KDE as anything else…
Besides, it’s not fair to assume Trolltech will increase their cost to an insane amount. I mean, they have to have customers..
What’s wrong with a community working with a commercial company? How many people would be needed to maintain the forked qt code? just to do the same work as the (fulltime) paid developers at trolltech? Is anyone forced to use qt for their program if they want to write a closed source product? No. Trolltech has competitors, and hence they’re not gonna raise the price, it’s a commercial company remember
. Trolltech doesn’t do it just because they’re so nice, they get something as well: publicity, and maybe other developers get a reason more to use qt: it’s used by one of the biggest linux desktop environments, so when used with kde, their program is going to load faster (hence, it’s better than a commercial campaign, and cheaper as well 
). In return, KDE gets a clean and wonderfull toolkit, some of it developers are being paid (Aaron Seigo) to work on KDE, wil this influence KDE? sure, but is it a problem for KDE? don’t think so. Trolltech has shown it can deal with the open-source attitude, and acts like it. The same as Apple does at the moment. That’s what open source is about. isn’t it? Reusage of the same resources? Rather than one company doing the same as another company, but seperated. In that case it seems as the gpl has succeeded: people can write a product and give it to everyone available, and other people can use other peoples code, without abusing the right given. So the community is better of, and the companies are better of. Everyone happy.
That’s a naive view. KDE did a great deal to help show what QT could do and how robust it was back in the early days; and it’s continued to show what a great toolkit QT is.
Besides, I doubt he cares what Trolltech thinks either, he was trying to get to KDE people…
Ah, yes. Thoroughly debunked — as in, I gave my opinion, others gave their opinions and that was that.
Not quite, your rantings and assertions where so way off that anyone who knows even a little about KDE and the stuff around it quickly gave up on them. In short you lost any credibility back then. Dropping QT and creating a replacement, are you serious? That would probably be the *only* way Gnome could catch up. Of course you are free to have your opinion, but remember other people are free to have an opinion as well, and spread it. If you behave like a tool and a troll, don’t act surprised when someone calls you that.
Note that I never said I didn’t like KDE, I said I didn’t like the situation with Qt.
That’s like me stating that I don’t mind you, I just don’t like your wriggling.
This article deals with something else from either my current feelings about KDE3 or Qt, it deals with Plasma, which has to do with KDE 4….
Sure, and guess what? It’ll still be based on the horrible QT and it’s GPL license. Oh the horror.
meh, enough time wasted.
So instead of admitting he was wrong by reassessing his views and posting an admonishment he should instead try and lay low while holding to his old view?
Besides, I don’t believe he once mentioned in the current article that he agreed with KDE staying on QT.
Yay for anonymae who insult respected people!
Sound and well reasoned: like that KDE should drop QT… No, he spread a whole lot of bullshit about gpl and qt, and was quite throughly debunked, iirc.
There’s no bullshit about it. Sun, Novell, and RedHat aren’t touching KDE (well, Novell maybe a bit…but they have Ximian) because they’re not going to let their desktop efforts dictated by Trolltech. And of course the dual-licensed Qt is a negative too compared to the LGPL.
Now you can wish that the issue would just go away, but it doesn’t because people know its an issue in the long run.
Put it this way, if glibc was under some dual-license scheme like Qt then there would have to be something else. And that’s the whole reason why Qt won’t be in the LSB.
http://www.linuxbase.org/futures/ideas/issues/libqt/
If you’ll notice, the article was posted by a mister ‘tbutler.’ Unless there’s another guy with the last name of Butler and a first name that starts with a t, I think that would be him.
> I believe GNOME has been working quite hard on and is
> succeeding with.
If you want to ‘believe’ then go into the church. They have been working hard on it that’s definately true but they haven’t succeeding with it.
> The idea that the day this occurs is near is, well,
> appealing.
I’ll take this and the other ‘this is great’ sentences as – all the Qt license issues he was babbeling before as something not existing anymore. How fast peoples minds can change.
KDE needs to be downsized, it uses too much memory and cpu to perform basic functions. Gnome is cleaner, faster and has better functionality.
If they could clean it up, but like every release it becomes more bloated up than the last. Just fix the bugs, quit making new ones, whocares about transulant menus, just make it stable!
> KDE uses too much memory and cpu to perform basic
> functions. Gnome is cleaner, faster and has better
> functionality.
Can you back any of these two sentences up?
> If they could clean it up, but like every release it
> becomes more bloated up than the last.
How can you say this? Care to back up even this statement?
> Just fix the bugs, quit making new ones, who cares
> about transulant menus, just make it stable!
The stability is more or less a compiler issue rather than a code issue. GCC is known to generate badly C++ code in the past. GCC is the one who needs to perform better for C++ related things, just as better code generation, better architecture support, stability, speed, scalability. You can’t blame KDE if the snapshot GCC version everyone installs these days generates wrong machine code and tends to crash the application.
Stability has nothing to do with GCC, but rather with KDE’s code. If GCC was generating bad C++ code, we’d be hearing a ton of bitching, and the GCC devs would be scrambling to fix such a gross error.
Stability has nothing to do with GCC, but rather with KDE’s code
Nope. Of course there are some bugs in KDE’s code but most stability issues are caused by the distributions and/or gcc. I’ve heard SuSE’s generally quite stable, personally I found debian’s KDE stable most of the time (stable means less than one Konqueror crash per week)
If GCC was generating bad C++ code, we’d be hearing a ton of bitching, and the GCC devs would be scrambling to fix such a gross error.
They’re scrambling so hard that the C++ ABI changes every second minor version and it’s been that way for years… oO
Yea that’s just not true. It’s based in truth: Gcc has been known to keep changing the c++ interfaces so that c++ binaries become incompatible between certain versions of gcc. But it does not generate bad c++.
If you don’t optimize it will generate very slow c++. Try it, you’ll notice it taking as long as it logically should to form all those classes and launch all those extra functions. Then try it with a -O2 and you’ll notice it get 5-20 times faster…
So, are there other *desktops* for linux/unix than KDE and Gnome? I mean saying they are both the best choice for the linux desktop seems kind of strange to me. Of course, all the Gnome vs. KDE hate seems kind of strange to me as well. Who gives a rats ass what someone else likes better?
GNUstep. XFCE.
I like this Tim Butler guy, he *gets it*. There isn’t one “Linux User”, there’s a whold bunch of different people with different sorts of preferences. For people who like flashy shiny eyecandy and preferences as far as the eye can see, they’ve got KDE. For people who just want to use their computers, they’ve got Gnome. And if you’ve got specialty needs, you’ve got dozens of other choices.
This is why it’s healthy tha KDE and Gnome both exist: they capture a slightly different market. It’s not just about a theme or widget set or programming language, it’s about a different way of using the computer. The projects are now co-operating on all sorts of useful things like .desktop specs, gstreamer, cairo (I think), and more. This is a *good* thing.
KDE always had a vision. A vision that meant providing the best features, in the most flexible package. That vision has not changed.
If anything, GNOME was the desktop lacking in vision and always reactionary.
>>If anything, GNOME was the desktop lacking in vision and always reactionary.
Please explain how was GNOME “reactionary”?
GNOME was a reaction to KDE.
Please explain how was GNOME “reactionary”…
1. GNOME 1.x was a reaction to QT being closed. QT was Later GPLed (and is now GPLed on all major platforms).
2. GNOME 1.x was cloaked in the ‘anti-commercialization of linux’ backlash.
3. In a reaction to the perceived need for ‘large-scale private / public sector’ adoption GNOME went on a mission to be Linux’s #1 corporate darling.
4. Some combination of the GNOME / GTK libs are LGPLed as a reaction to the perceived need for closed source vendors to be able to use these libs (AKA they were made less ‘free as in speech’ in order to help produce software that is not ‘free as in speech’. But that’s a different story).
5. GNOME 2.x is a reaction the press rants about linux desktops being too tough on Aunt Tilly. My HIG has a big feature neutering axe…
6. The GNOME developers seem to have a need to react to the technology of the month (GConf, Mono stuff, etc…), even when they fly in the face of the UNIX way(tm). UNIX may “suck”– but some times they seem in too much of a rush to run away from their heritage…
Please note that these aren’t always bad things… It helped get QT GPLed, the GNOME HIG will likely lead to some cleanup [but not feature neutering] of KDE’s UI… KDE seems to be more about just developing KDE…
Anyway, back to talking about KDE
I don’t understand how everyone thinks good UI design involves dumbing something down. What exactly are these “neutered” features you speak of?
-bytecoder
“I don’t understand how everyone thinks good UI design involves dumbing something down.”
Neither do I, but I am fond of a reasonably clean interface with sane defaults. I’m very fond of KDE, and it only needs a wee bit of ‘shine’ on most apps…
“What exactly are these “neutered” features you speak of?”
-Look at the robust (or bewildering if you prefer) set of apps and options that GNOME 1.4 had vs. 2.0. The GNOME 2 HIG was heavy handed in many peoples opinions… and these people were ‘actual users’ as opposed to ‘theoretical users’.
-Google for “enable in the gconf registry”
It did stink until gconf-editor came out and got a search, which was recent. But now I don’t mind doing a bit of gconf editing..
Neither do I, but I am fond of a reasonably clean interface with sane defaults. I’m very fond of KDE, and it only needs a wee bit of ‘shine’ on most apps…
Isn’t that a bit of an oxymoron? I don’t remember ever seeing a KDE app with a clean interface, or even reasonably clean.
-Look at the robust (or bewildering if you prefer) set of apps and options that GNOME 1.4 had vs. 2.0. The GNOME 2 HIG was heavy handed in many peoples opinions… and these people were ‘actual users’ as opposed to ‘theoretical users’.
Well, I looked around at screenshots of gnome 1.4, and it was actually pretty fun to see what gnome looked like back then. I don’t see much of a difference between that and 2.0, though, and it still looks much better than KDE.
My main problem, with both KDE and Gnome, is that they’re not particularly elegant. A lot of things could be reworked for the better, but would require more integration with the OS, which neither of them will do because they’re OS independent.
Ok. One by one.
1.) Yep, much of that was reactionary. And then they realized that they needed thousands upon thousands of hours to work for nothing (except for the ones RedHat paid of course)… Definitely reactionary.
But then again. Windows was a reaction to Mac. Mac was a reaction to Xerox research.
Everything is to some extent a reaction.
Reactionary involves going to the opposite extreme usually. I wouldn’t really call what Gnome did reactionary, simply because they are not and have never been an extreme with respect to KDE. You’ll say they are on feature policies, but read on and you’ll see why you’re wrong.
2.) No. It was cloaked in anti-use of closed libraries. KDE wasn’t trying to commercialize. It just needed a commercial library. No one was, TMK, selling KDE. Besides, THE commercialization of Linux was on the Gnome side: RedHat.
3.) Well, that’s definitely reactionary; along with everyone else who was ever inspired to succeed by something that bothered them. Why all liberals are reactionaries too! (If you’re American, you’ll see the ironic humor there).
4.) Yes, and bug fixes are reactionary.
5.) This is a problem. Applications for Gnome do not have to be cut down on features or options. They’re required to by default be simple to use without changing options; and they’re required to only present the user with the most important options. But, most of them have many more options buried their gconf entries!
6.) Gconf was hardly reactionary. Who here isn’t sick of dot entries in their home? Well, at least a little bothered by the hundreds you probably have. KDE has centralized preferences, hey why not Gnome too. So they used a centralized library that uses centrally located, decentralized, xml files (one for each app: decentralized) to store settings. XML is popular for a reason: It’s with Unix principles and it enables heirarchial data storage which applications can view with centralized libraries and users can edit with emacs, or vi, or joe, or gedit, or ed! Mono? Oh please. Gnome has been centered on C… What older language could they pick? What more Unix-y language could they center on! Now, I’d rather see them center on python than Mono, but seeing as how they haven’t declared anything yet we don’t know.
KDE is great. Gnome is great. I like both! I think both have great things. I’d say that Gnome is a bit easier to use these days but KDE offers better configurability for power users.
And this talk of KDE being a memory hog is much exaggerated. I use KDE comfortably on my laptop, very comfortably (rarely swaps):
Celeron 700
192MB PC-100 — 8MB Shared to Video
10GB 4200RPM disk (sooo slow)
I usually use emacs (5-30 buffers), konsole (several shells), gcc (c and c++), firefox, gaim, etc.
Yea, it uses more than Gnome, but hey it generally runs faster than Gnome too. KDE 3.4.1 I think.
Sorry- my six point post was a smidgen high in drama… The only thing I’d like to say in reply to your rebuttal, is that I agree 100% with: “KDE is great. Gnome is great. I like both! I think both have great things. I’d say that Gnome is a bit easier to use these days but KDE offers better configurability for power users.” Now let’s not start dredging up 8 years of newsgroup posts
> This is a problem. Applications for Gnome do not have
> to be cut down on features or options. They’re required
> to by default be simple to use without changing
> options; and they’re required to only present the user
> with the most important options. But, most of them have
> many more options buried their gconf entries!
But this is hardly reflecting the reality. What are important options for one (to alter through the preferences dialog) are unnecessary options for the other. Same applies for settings where you need to use gconf-editor for (there are important settings for the one, that you need to modify in this ugly way and there are options none of interest for others).
> Gconf was hardly reactionary. Who here isn’t sick of
> dot entries in their home? Well, at least a little
> bothered by the hundreds you probably have. KDE has
> centralized preferences, hey why not Gnome too. So
> they used a centralized library that uses centrally
> located
… This only shows how much you don’t understand and don’t know about GNOME …
GNOME never had issues with .dot entries in the home directory. And GNOME never lacked a centralized preferences system. Whoever told you this is was a moron. GNOME had gnome-config for many years it was part of the desktop solution and was (and still is) part of the libgnome library. People had to use gnome-config and later on GConf. gnome-config stored the settings in ~/.gnome directory way back (could also have been ~/.gnome2) so the settings were quite organized in a subdir.
If GCC was generating bad C++ code, we’d be hearing a ton of bitching, and the GCC devs would be scrambling to fix such a gross error.
Something like this then: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19317#c32
If I not entirely mistaken, you see something like 18 comits to GCC CVS in this br alone.
Isn’t that thread about GCC 4?
Yes, and it was the easiest for me to find. But it still shows that misscompiling are not uncommon in GCC releases, and if you bother to search in their bugzilla you will find more of them.
Isn’t linux’ module interface lgpl? Otherwise I don’t know how ati and nvidia ship modules legally..
No it’s not, the Linux kernel module interface is GPL all the way. Both the ATI and NVidia kernel modules are GPL(or compatible), and perfectly legal. The kernel module are only a part of the driver, there also are the X11 part. Which is the interresting one when coming to 3d accelerating, and the one which is closed source.
I really don’t understand for quite a long time why Gnome and KDE get so much attention. To me, they are both kinda bloated and bloat has never been part of the nix philosophy.
People seem to forget that there are some really interesting alternatives that fit alot better in the nix world: enlightenment, fvwm, windowmaker, ect. The main problem is that most people don’t care (or don’t care anymore) about those projects …explaining the slow development of them.
It’s sad to see that most of the attention now goes only to Gnome and KDE and that developers only target GTK or QT. I’m sure you can do much better guys.
Personnaly, I’m tired of this. That’s why, like many people, I changed my mind some time ago. Linux was cool 5 years ago, it’s no more. Well, at least, for now. So I told myself that not using stuff that depends on GTK or QT was the way to go. If I can’t find the right tool that doesn’t use GTK or QT, I use Windows. The right tool for the right thing. Finally I think I use Windows most of the time but I think it’s all good like that.
Anyway, as a developer, targeting Win32, MFC or .NET is way more useful than targeting GTK or QT if you’re looking for a job. So the only reason I see to use GTK or QT is “fun” but there’s no more fun. But again, many people know this but are not gonna move. But why? Just take a look at EFL (enlightenment foundation library) for example, it’s much more promising than GTK and QT will ever be.
I have no doubs about, and the reason is the license, simple.
Don’t give that “GPL rules, Qt rules” arguments, from the point of view of someone who is in the bussines and had see the progress of GTK and how many enterprices are adopting it and the point where project MONO is getting, (No patents are no a risk anymore).
I respect GNOME and GTK because they are never afraid to be the firsth one to adopt technologies other don’t try because “is not tested enought”, they have the balls to include it, they take the challenge, as an example I’ll take Cairo and SVG.
Other plus for GNOME developers is that they take standar serious, they take freedesktop.org serious enougth and don’t try to bash it like some KDE developers has (Hey, if you don’t like fd.org standars its ok, dont use them, but don’t bash it, because you and your project will look like idiots).
Of course there is more of that couple of moves that have taken GNOME to the point of being one viable solution as GTK does.
KDE will be always be opaqued by the Qt license shadow, let me tell you,if Qt had a diference license they would killed GNOME long time ago, but is not the case, no even the TrollTech movement of make Qt GPL to Windows will help them, because will only be usefull to write GPL code, and the license cost are still to high.
So I see a very bright future for GNOME and GTK.
“Hey, if you don’t like fd.org standars its ok, dont use them, but don’t bash it, because you and your project will look like idiots”
Criticism is incredibly important for improvement, and you and your family look like idiots because of your post.
“Don’t give that “GPL rules, Qt rules” arguments, from the point of view of someone who is in the bussines and had see the progress of GTK and how many enterprices are adopting it and the point where project MONO is getting, (No patents are no a risk anymore). ”
Until the lawyer says yeah. Then Mono is no.*
*And les we all forget Mono !== C#
> Other plus for GNOME developers is that they take
> standar serious, they take freedesktop.org serious
> enougth and don’t try to bash it like some KDE
> developers has
You are very funny.
You’re bashing KDE for not implementing as many ideas written down on fd.o but you really don’t know what you’re talking about. There’s no such thing as a fd.o standard. Just because something is listed on fd.o does not make it a standard (*).
The Gnomes just write something up that they implemented anyway or what they are working on, and put it there. Now that is really a great achievement! Well, better than not writing it up because it also serves as documentation but that does not make it a standard. Sometimes the KDE devs do the same, often they do it even together.
The latter case has the biggest chance of the document becoming a *de facto* standard because it needs (IMHO) at least both GNOME and KDE to implement a spec for it to be rightfully called one.
Or the devs just document what already *is* a de facto standard, i.e. what is already implemented by both major desktops.
(*): From the freedesktop.org web page:
– “Unlike a standards organization, freedesktop.org is a ‘collaboration zone’ where ideas and code are tossed around, and de facto specifications are encouraged.”
– About the software hosted there: “Some software has made its way here to live. None of this is “endorsed” by anyone or implied to be standard software, remember that freedesktop.org is a collaboration forum, so anyone is encouraged to host stuff here if it’s on-topic.”
It’s more vaporware than Longhorn.
http://dot.kde.org/1123761824/. Do a search for “18 months” where Aaron Segio talks about timeframes.
I wouldn’t call it vapour- (Yes, I’m feeding a Troll)
Remember there will be a 3.5 release of KDE. Beta 1 is slated for September 13th, 2005- so a 3.5 before Christmas. And it will bring a bunch of new features ( http://developer.kde.org/development-versions/kde-3.5-features.html ). So the gap between 3.5 and 4.0 won’t be that bad.
And there are a bunch of things that are know about KDE 4.0:
-QT 4 is out. What it brings to the table is known. From the sound of things the ‘big thing’ it brings to the table is that it will be exploiting xorg’s fancy rendering stuff. Along with a bunch of other improvements. ( http://www.trolltech.com/newsroom/announcements/00000209.html )
-The rough shape of ‘Plasma’ is known ( http://plasma.kde.org/cms/1029 ).
-ARTs will be superseded the the KDEMM framework
-There has been a strong desire expressed in various mailing lists to ‘shine up’ the toolbars, menus, and panel menu where it is deemed appropriate.
-There is still a lot of debate about what to do about the ‘Control Centre’.
The shape of KDE 4 will become a lot more clear after developer conference starting in about a week ( http://conference2005.kde.org/ ).
As one of KDE’s long time developers I’d consider Aaron’s comment on that page about the timeframe a rather pessimistic one. Actually many KDE developers are aiming for a delivery date no later than Oct. 2006. That also goes well with Aaron’s estimations in his latest interview:
http://www.linux-mag.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=…
That of course would make KDE 4.0 a nice birthday present for KDE’s 10 year anniversary (which is due on Oct. 14 2006) 😉
It’s more vaporware than Longhorn.
Is it, because there’s code being written and porting actually happening? With open source software you can actually see it happening, you know?
Aaron is certainly conscious of trying to create lots of interest, but at the same time having to have something to show for it. The ideas for Plasma are quite a bit different to what’s been talked about before, and there’s certainly some vision there.
And Longhorn/Vista? I’ve used a recent build, and honestly, there is no reason in the world Microsoft couldn’t have taken Windows XP and hacked up the stuff in a few months. You wonder what they’ve been doing for the last two or three years – not eighteen months.
Do a search for “18 months” where Aaron Segio talks about timeframes.
Yer and? That’s how long it will probably take, and how long major new releases of KDE have taken in the past. This is more major than most.
Gnome 3? *Shrugs shoulders*. That’s why Qt is such a huge and pivotal part of KDE’s success, because it will take Gnome much, much, much, much, much longer in terms of their development tools through to the desktop and their application to turn around a new major release.
I doubt whether real users are going to care much about fanboys whinging consistently about the KDE license (whatever that means), and that’s certainly why KDE is the most popular open source desktop today. Sorry, but it’s a different world out there.
Is it, because there’s code being written and porting actually happening? With open source software you can actually see it happening, you know?
Yeah, in the open sores cult world, unless some pimply kid that couldn’t program his way out of a paper bag can get his grubby mitts on some useless code from CVS then it ain’t being developed….typical.
And Longhorn/Vista? I’ve used a recent build, and honestly, there is no reason in the world Microsoft couldn’t have taken Windows XP and hacked up the stuff in a few months. You wonder what they’ve been doing for the last two or three years – not eighteen months.
Yes, because you’ve “used” a recent build makes you privy to all the internal code that is being developed. I’m sure some open sores kids in their basement like you could’ve hacked it together in a couple weeks.
Gnome 3? *Shrugs shoulders*. That’s why Qt is such a huge and pivotal part of KDE’s success, because it will take Gnome much, much, much, much, much longer in terms of their development tools through to the desktop and their application to turn around a new major release.
Until gtk+3.x comes out, Gnome will most likely remain in 2.x land because there is no reason to just randomly increment major version numbers.
I doubt whether real users are going to care much about fanboys whinging consistently about the KDE license (whatever that means), and that’s certainly why KDE is the most popular open source desktop today. Sorry, but it’s a different world out there.
The KDE license doesn’t seem to be the problem. It’s LGPL. It’s the Qt license. Yes, I know you and many other KDE fanboys (especially the germans) are bitter that Novell bought Suse and especially that they bought Ximian. Ouch, that last one really hurt. But of course the Qt license has *nothing* to do with it. haha.
Lumbergh is right. Gnome, much like KDE,changes major version numbers with its toolkit. The last time GTK changed version numbers was, IIRC, a total rewrite.
Gnome is a bit more about being evolutionary anyway. Which is cool in its own rite.
> Lumbergh is right. Gnome, much like KDE,changes major version numbers with its toolkit.
And so is segedunum when he says that GNOME 3 will take a long time. See http://live.gnome.org/ThreePointZero , there they sketch the changes, and they call it a “two-year project”. That’s 24 months, and there is not even a timeline yet.
See http://live.gnome.org/ThreePointZero , there they sketch the changes, and they call it a “two-year project”. That’s 24 months, and there is not even a timeline yet.
I think even that’s optimistic to be honest. Gnome 2 itself was a two year project, and encompassed a lot of new stuff like GConf.
Gnome 3 has to be pretty much a rewrite from the GTK tookit to the user facing apps, and that is a hell of a lot of work. When you look at the other stuff they want ot put into it as well, like 3D effects and eye candy as well as higher level languages….hell, that’s a lot.
GNOME has aimed for simplicity with reduced configuration complexity made possible through the highlighting of the options business users want and need.
The ecosystem isn’t all buisiness users.Than again it’s often not their trade but the admin who has to see to it that the corporate desktop policy is enforced.In that case it doesn’t really matter if OpenOffice is launched from a gnome or kde desktop as long as it works.Furthermore both can perfectly coexist on the same desktop system so the hour slaves have something to argue about over lunch.
I’m a kde guy. Still, I find that gnome is great for a time now. Yet, it’s not my choice, because many things, + the reg.-like config makes me puke. However, I find amusing when some people (here and other places) come with arguments that gnome always has the guts to implement groundbrakingly new ideas and succeeds in it, and that is the desktop of the future. I don’t doubt it has an important place among the *nix desktops. But I don’t stand here blinded and I can see for many years now how gnome never could become the most widespread *nix desktop. When they succeed with that, then I’ll still have problems admitting that it really has what it takes. From among my problems with gnome one is major lack of important configurability, another one is that kdevelop3 has become a rockingly nice, powerful and easy to use development platform (and not just for kde apps, but – unsurprisingly – mainly and rightly so) which I’m not willing to so easily drop, unless you give me a similar one for gtk. And no, I don’t want a mono-based rad for gtk#, beacuse I feel that somewhat like this will come first.
Anjuta is a nice IDE for GNOME. Personally, I despise IDEs.
> To me, they are both kinda bloated and bloat has never been part of the nix philosophy.
If you could explain me what “bloated” actually means… Is using, say, fluxbox or fvwm and then collecting a bunch of totally inconsistent apps (which are probably partly Gnome or KDE apps, so both frameworks are loaded anyway) to save some MB of RAM more the unix way? If you say you don’t need Gtk/Qt apps in general, fine, then show me decent apps I can use to manage my digital photos, read RSS feeds, read my mails (no, I don’t want to use mutt or pine. At least until mutt can display attached pics inline *g*)…
The most non-Qt/Gtk GUI apps on Unix you see in the wild are mostly written in Tcl/tk (yuck) or Motif (yuck^3). wxwidgets? IIRC I never met an app that used it. FLTK? That’s _very_ basic, and hadn’t even layout management the last time I checked.
Plus, using any of the “exotic” toolkits makes your app inconsistent to _any_ desktop. And if I want ugly widgets that run on many platforms I can also use Java + Swing
> People seem to forget that there are some really
> interesting alternatives that fit alot better in
> the nix world: enlightenment, fvwm, windowmaker,
I don’t care if “something fits into the Unix world”. I want to get my work done and use an environment that is fun using. Apparently the “unix way” doesn’t cut it on the desktop.
>But why? Just take a look at EFL (enlightenment foundation library) for example, it’s much more promising than GTK and QT will ever be.
Great, where does it help me that a toolkit is “promising”? If I want to write an application I need a stable toolkit with good documentation. After a (admittedly very short) look on EWL I am not very impressed:
– There are no real docs on the website except the book linked.
– It is C, if there are bindings, they are well hidden. I won’t touch C for GUI apps in 2005.
– it uses char* instead of a decent string class. Buffer overflows, here I come.
So this is the toolkit you suggest me to do productive work? Where are the advantages over say, GTK+?
This Tim guy sounds like a professional gnome troll to me.
Why is there a need to debate which one is better?
I use both and I have no favourites.
Heck, I use Qt and WxWidgets when programming.
As long as they fit into my requirements, why is there a need to bicker over which one is better?
The problem with KDE is that the developers have tried to implent ever single feature they could possibly think of. It’s just to much of everything! And besides that it still lack very standard usability features like smooth scrolling and the file manager remembering it’s size and position, features that’s been available in gnome, osx and windows for years.
> The problem with KDE is that the developers have tried
> to implent ever single feature they could possibly
> think of. It’s just to much of everything!
I don’t think it’s just too much of everything. Every user has different needs and what might be too much for you could be exactly the thing someone was searching for. So at the end, there is no problem with KDE.
> And besides that it still lack very standard
> usability features like smooth scrolling and the file
> manager remembering it’s size and position, features
> that’s been available in gnome, osx and windows for
> years.
See, you want the file manager to remember the size and position and for me this is exactly annoying. But then if they add an option for it to KDE so you can disable it then it’s just fine for me.
> I don’t think it’s just too much of everything. Every
> user has different needs and what might be too much for
> you could be exactly the thing someone was searching
> for. So at the end, there is no problem with KDE.
Yes, but actually most user don’t prefer to have 15 buttons on the filemanager toolbar or chaotic option-dialogs cluttered with hundreds of options. That’s the reason why all new enterprise linux distibutiors chooses gnome over KDE even though it’s slower and uses more memory while having less features.
> See, you want the file manager to remember the size and
> position and for me this is exactly annoying. But then
> if they add an option for it to KDE so you can disable
> it then it’s just fine for me.
Surely there must be a reson why this is the default behaviour on all other desktop environments.
Yes, but actually most user don’t prefer to have 15 buttons on the filemanager toolbar
Well, fix it then, it takes a stunning 5-10 minutes, is pretty easily done and will not have to be repeated.
or chaotic option-dialogs cluttered with hundreds of options.
Now that’s borderlining trolling. They aren’t very chaotic, and options are better than no options. If you don’t understand them, leave the defaults alone. Nobody is forcing you to mess with the settings, right?
Surely there must be a reason why this is the default behavior on all other desktop environments.
Oh, we’ve gotta keep up with the Jones! Seriously, why imitate everyone else? Just that “everyone” else does something is a *very* bad reason for imitation. You have a brain, why not think of a better motivation than just “Every one else does it mum!”
Lame arguments trying to defend the indefensible will not gain you any points.
“Well, fix it then, it takes a stunning 5-10 minutes, is pretty easily done and will not have to be repeated.”
Now multiply that across multiple desktops. People complain about lost time when it comes to dealing with MS products and spam. So why should they tolerate a deliberate loss?
“Now that’s borderlining trolling. They aren’t very chaotic, and options are better than no options. If you don’t understand them, leave the defaults alone. Nobody is forcing you to mess with the settings, right?”
You’re assuming that the “default” is a good choice to begin with, and therefore doesn’t need changing?
“Oh, we’ve gotta keep up with the Jones! Seriously, why imitate everyone else? Just that “everyone” else does something is a *very* bad reason for imitation. You have a brain, why not think of a better motivation than just “Every one else does it mum!” ”
Only if you assume that that’s the only reason to do something. You can of course ignore all the HCI literature and research that’s been done for the past 20 years, and you will end up paying the price. For the simple reason that technology changes, people fundamentally don’t.
“Lame arguments trying to defend the indefensible will not gain you any points.”
Nor will ignorance about the fundamental issues at hand.
> Now multiply that across multiple desktops. People
> complain about lost time when it comes to dealing
> with MS products and spam. So why should they
> tolerate a deliberate loss?
If the distributors (the ones having to make money from their version of the software!) were convinced that there really was a problem with KDE as grave as the ususal usability whiners in internet forums keep saying then they would all change those defaults *before* the “multiplication” of the needed effort through distribution. It would be in their own best interest.
They’re not doing it so I conclude the problem is not perceived as being so grave. And I’m sure the distributors carefully evaluate the feedback from their customers.
“They’re not doing it so I conclude the problem is not perceived as being so grave. And I’m sure the distributors carefully evaluate the feedback from their customers.”
Grepping changelogs I see, if you’re that certain that none of them are making usability changes.*
*BTW Nice “appeal to the experts”, you have there.
> > “They’re not doing it so I conclude the problem
> > is not perceived as being so grave. And I’m sure
> > the distributors carefully evaluate the feedback
> > from their customers.”
> Grepping changelogs I see, if you’re that certain
> that none of them are making usability changes
If they made those changes then the point I replied to would by completely moot (“Now multiply that across multiple desktops. […]So why should they [the users] tolerate a deliberate loss? “). If there actually was that clutter problem and the distributors *did* fix it then there would be no such loss anyway.
But I repeat: In my experience the distros don’t change KDE’s defaults that much (although it’s dead easy to do so) so they cannot see KDE’s defaults as a major problem.
> *BTW Nice “appeal to the experts”, you have there.
Because they are. They have the data (in the form of feedback) and they can do something about it when they get negative feedback. The rest is simple observation.
BTW: Nice attempt at a killer phrase you have there.
“Yes, but actually most user don’t prefer to have 15 buttons on the filemanager toolbar or chaotic option-dialogs cluttered with hundreds of options. That’s the reason why all new enterprise linux distibutiors chooses gnome over KDE even though it’s slower and uses more memory while having less features. ”
It’s ultimately a control issue. And geeks as a general rule are control-freaks. From the GPL all the way down to the “small tools doing specific things”. Maybe it’s an insecurity, maybe not.
You’ll find however that the world at large doesn’t have this great desire to control everything. Some things, hence the products with extra controls, but not everything. And in fact most are overwelmed with too much choice.
So basically it comes down to, who do you cater to, since the two are direct opposites? The one’s who need control to feel secure? Or the ones who come from a world were control of everything didn’t really exist, and therefore wouldn’t be missed?
> Yes, but actually most user don’t prefer to have 15
> buttons on the filemanager toolbar or chaotic
> option-dialogs cluttered with hundreds of options.
I have no problems with the 15 buttons on the filemanager toolbar.
> That’s the reason why all new enterprise linux
> distibutiors chooses gnome over KDE even though it’s
> slower and uses more memory while having less
> features.
Please name all enterprise linux distributors.
> Surely there must be a reson why this is the default
> behaviour on all other desktop environments.
This is simply bullshit.
> I have no problems with the 15 buttons on the filemanager toolbar.
Good for you. But you are not alone using KDE.
Novell bought suse which is a KDE centric distro. Yet they choosed gnome for NLD. Sun also choosed gnome over KDE for both solaris and their own Linux distro.
Perhaps I should have said “all other major desktop envoirments”. Windows has it, Gnome has it and Mac OS (both classic and X) has it.
Novell bought suse which is a KDE centric distro. Yet they choosed gnome for NLD.
God, not again. Novell DID NOT choose Gnome for the NLD. You get a radio button in the installer to choose KDE or Gnome, and whatever you choose that’s what you get.
In terms of OpenSuse, SLES and Open Enterprise Server, KDE is very much the default desktop. No one talks about that though :-).
Seems like they chose Gnome for it to me. You can install KDE on RedHat, but I don’t see any kde publicity shots from RedHat.
No one cares about the default desktop on a server. There’s a large range (most) of server admins who think you’d be silly to even run X on the server other than to make changes!
X is nothing more than a liability on a network server. Seriously, I’ve had machines go down over x driver issues before and guess what; they don’t run X anymore!
Those “Extenders” in KDE’s Plasma project remind me of BeOS’s Replicants. Good stuff.
Criticism is incredibly important for improvement, and you and your family look like idiots because of your post.
I agree that criticism to fd.org is good and can help but with articles like:
“FreeDesktop must die” or “Its a death parrot, not its a FreeDesktop.org” title in the KDE devs. blogs is simple helpless, and make look KDE devs and the project look idiots.
Moreover, I did not say Trolltech has royalities, I said they could in the future. Note how I compared the situation of TT and KDE to Microsoft and IBM. “Now, I think TT is a lot nicer company than MS, but in the end, shareholders drive a company. If someday KDE was really popular, those shareholders are going to push TT to maximize profits. That cannot happen with a product not run by a single corporation (that is, GTK+). But this is really the wrong thing to be debating on this post, because my article was trying to highlight some good things about KDE, not revisit my Qt concerns, which you clearly still do not grasp (you are making arguments in disagreement, but you aren’t disagreeing with my actual points so much as other peoples’ points).”
there you are wrong. do you know who own Trolltech? no? read. TT is owned by its employees, most of whom are also KDE developers.
“I believe it would. But as is the case now, we have two dominant desktop platforms with roughly the same market share, with one of the platforms dependent on a toolkit that big vendors don’t want to touch, and the other with arguably inferior technology.”
I believe it would not. if there was just one desktop, it would be worse. darwinism plays strong in free software world! i think it is good to have choice.
That’s interesting that you basically don’t have a problem with a Qt style glibc licenses. “Realistic” in your world translates to Linux being utterly worthless with no corporate sponsorship if that scenario would have ever happened. Once again, you’ve tried to rationalize a bad thing because you’re deep into “the community”
Linux is not utterly worthless without corporate sponsorship. What are people using today? Apache, sendmail, exim, postfix, LDAP, postgres, mysql, OpenLDAP, OpenSSH, KDE, GNOME, Firefox and so on. These programs are all either GPL or have a GPL compatible license. Compared to the amount of free software, there is hardly any commercial software available for Linux anyway. And a lot of people don’t mind, they actually use Linux because they want free software. If Linux would have been dommed because of a lack of commercial software, it would not be where it is now.
You’re right its not going to get any better for KDE if the linux desktop is ever to not be insignicant. The license issue won’t go away no matter how many tantrums you throw and how much you try to wish it away.
And KDE and its users won’t go away either, no matter how much you whine about it. Because KDE offers a lot to its users. Qt makes it easy to develop for KDE, Qt makes it easy to write applications for KDE. More and more of the best of the breed FOSS applications are Qt/KDE applications.
Possibly, but its hurt the overall market penetration of linux on the desktop. There’s no doubt about that. Linux is a kernel, not an operating system. The reason that OSX is so far ahead, and always will be is because they control the whole stack from microkernel on up.
Most OSS developers don’t care about overall market penetration. It just doesn’t matter to them. They work on e.g. KDE because they want to, because they have fun doing so. And for most users overall market penetration doesn’t really matter either. I doubt that many MacOSX users will switch to Windows just because Windows has more overall market penetration.
> God, not again. Novell DID NOT choose Gnome for the NLD.
> You get a radio button in the installer to choose KDE or
> Gnome, and whatever you choose that’s what you get.
But gnome is still the default, just like KDE is the default for suse.
> In terms of OpenSuse, SLES and Open Enterprise Server,
> KDE is very much the default desktop. No one talks about
> that though :-).
Suse has used kde for years before gnome where an alternative.
> But gnome is still the default.
Novell was always expert in chosing bad technology so why bother.
But gnome is still the default, just like KDE is the default for suse.
IT IS NOT the default. Which part of that did you fail to understand?
Quit flaming! Gnome is indeed the default DE for NLD. Please read some reviews. Or if that’s too dificult for you then at least look at the screenshots.
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=9673
Why can’t you KDE zealots take some criticism? I’ve had enough of this. I’m not going to follow this thread anymore.
“Quit flaming! Gnome is indeed the default DE for NLD. Please read some reviews. Or if that’s too dificult for you then at least look at the screenshots.”
LMAO did you even read the first paragraph of the link you posted?
“Installation is almost identical to SuSE’s and so there is nothing new to report here apart from the screen that lets you choose between Gnome and KDE as your main interface”
Quit flaming! Gnome is indeed the default DE for NLD. Please read some reviews. Or if that’s too dificult for you then at least look at the screenshots.
Screenshots do not prove that a desktop has been made the default. Some would like you to think so though ;-).
Why can’t you KDE zealots take some criticism? I’ve had enough of this. I’m not going to follow this thread anymore.
Why can’t you Gnome zealots be realistic and not claim that you’re the default on distributions where you’re not. No KDE person has claimed that KDE is the default on the NLD anywhere.
But gnome is still the default, just like KDE is the default for suse.
IT IS NOT the default. Which part of that did you fail to understand?
So sorry, Segedunum. Novell has chosen Gnome for the vast majority of their desktop development and no matter how many times you scream “IT IS NOT the default” does not change the fact that Ximian is heading up the desktop efforts at Novell.
Is unfortunate that you and the other KDE fanboys live in a fantasy world where the Qt license isn’t an issue, but the rest of us in the real world understand it is.
But your response to the glibc licensing question was very informative. You said:
You still have this extremely strange idea that not only should all this software be free, but that you should be able to develop any kind of software you want with it free as well. Software development still takes time, effort and investment – glibc and other software development doesn’t just happen magically.
That tells everybody that you are a not a rational person because you believe that some trolltech license scheme for glibc could have been feasible, rendering linux completely useless.
> Is unfortunate that you and the other KDE fanboys live
> in a fantasy world where the Qt license isn’t an issue,
> but the rest of us in the real world understand it is.
Real world people don’t use either GNOME nor KDE, they use Windows which still shared 90% of the Desktop market. But if it comes to Open Source solutions then you can be sure that the vast majority is using KDE rather than GNOME since the applications for KDE simply work.
I say this because as we speak I have hard times getting used to the permanent crashing evince under GNOME 2.12-RC there are some other issues with GNOME as well which I dislike diving into but it’s a pain to use, much more of a pain than KDE. KDE works out in most cases perfectly, the stuff are always in usable shape.
But if it comes to Open Source solutions then you can be sure that the vast majority is using KDE rather than GNOME since the applications for KDE simply work
Well, we know you claiming that the “vast majority is using KDE” is a lie.
> Are you capable of reading? I was talking about glibc.
Yes! Even better than you, how many times did people point you to the Qt license agreement with the KDE folks and yet you still keep stomping on it.
> Well, we know you claiming that the “vast majority is using KDE” is a lie.
Saying that GNOME is used everywhere like you are doing is a lie too.
Saying that GNOME is used everywhere like you are doing is a lie too.
You just lied again. I never said that.
> You just lied again. I never said that.
What are you? Some sort of OSN clown, you would make a fine OSN pet by the way.
Saying that GNOME is used everywhere like you are doing is a lie too.
“too” – at least you admit you are a liar.
Please Lumbergh, can’t you for once stay out of a KDE thread and let people discuss matters related to KDE? It’s getting seriously boring to hear you whine all the time about old stuff that’s been discussed for ages. Keep to the Gnome threads and feel free to there flame trolls attacking Gnome, but stay stay out of the KDE threads.
“You just lied again. I never said that.”
Why don’t you two just hit each other with a pie, and get it over with?
Well, we know you claiming that the “vast majority is using KDE” is a lie.
Based on what?
Every survey I’ve ever seen says KDE is number one by a country mile (queue lots of comments about meaningless surveys), and when it starts to happen consistently in a lot of them you have to wonder why.
It is difficult to ascertain Gnome usage, because people just lie about it so much. Where are these desktops in China, where are these desktops in the NHS (which I know hasn’t happened) and all these corporate deployments? Because, like the terrorist caves in the Tora Bora mountains, they’re a fantasy. Any kind of real-world attempt (like surveys or distrowatch) to find out just reflects people’s fantasies falling well short of reality.
Either Gnome users aren’t getting out and voting or there are just plain less of them. You wonder then how many KDE users did not bother and how many simply don’t know they’re using it.
You then also realise, very amusingly, that most Gnome supporters are on these forums, talking abut default desktops, talking about licensing problems and all that stuff that people who are actually using KDE (and non-Linux/Unix users using Windows and Macs in the real world) simply don’t care about. If you picked up the cluestick you’d realise that’s why.
Every survey I’ve ever seen says KDE is number one by a country mile (queue lots of comments about meaningless surveys), and when it starts to happen consistently in a lot of them you have to wonder why.
You would have to be a complete idiot to think that the “vast majority” are using KDE based on an online poll, but hey you’re just being a loser fanboy as usual, so no surprise there.
You would have to be a complete idiot to think that the “vast majority” are using KDE based on an online poll,
That’s funny. I still don’t see any online polls declaring Gnome to be the most popular Linux/Unix desktop. I suppose all those evil KDE users have found a way to vote three or four times each. Damn those people!
but hey you’re just being a loser fanboy as usual, so no surprise there.
Oh dear. Poor you.
That’s funny. I still don’t see any online polls declaring Gnome to be the most popular Linux/Unix desktop. I suppose all those evil KDE users have found a way to vote three or four times each. Damn those people!
OSNews had one. I guess that doesn’t count though. I guess unless its officially sanctioned by dot.kde.org it only counts.
Oh dear. Poor you.
I know it sucks that you have become so emotionally attached to KDE that you aren’t able to think clearly about the license situation.
OSNews had one. I guess that doesn’t count though.
Well since the Desktop Consortium one was actually open long enough for people to vote……
I guess unless its officially sanctioned by dot.kde.org it only counts.
Don’t recall dot.kde having a poll, controlling one or there being any controversy about them being ivolved in voter fraud with the Desktop Consortium or similar ones.
that you aren’t able to think clearly about the license situation.
Since all you think about is licensing and developing for nothing (which users out there, suprise, surprise don’t care about) that’s pretty funny.
“I say this because as we speak I have hard times getting used to the permanent crashing evince under GNOME 2.12-RC there are some other issues with GNOME as well which I dislike diving into but it’s a pain to use, much more of a pain than KDE. KDE works out in most cases perfectly, the stuff are always in usable shape.”
Uh, huh. So how many here have been using Linux before there was even a Trolltech, KDE, Gnome to fight about?
How about those who watched the two grow up before our eyes?
Dontcha just wish for the good old days?
> Dontcha just wish for the good old days?
The so called good old times are gone. Face the reality.
> Dontcha just wish for the good old days?
“The so called good old times are gone. Face the reality.”
*deleting QT, KDE, and Gnome*
You were saying?
“KDE works out in most cases perfectly, the stuff are always in usable shape.”
My KDE Clock randomly changes timezones. Can I cast asperations on KDE now?
> My KDE Clock randomly changes timezones
I doubt that, watch your mouse wheel.
> That tells everybody that you are a not a rational
> person because you believe that some trolltech license
> scheme for glibc could have been feasible, rendering
> linux completely useless.
Speaking about ‘rational person’. You keep using the word ‘linux’ everywhere. Please be rational here and understand that Qt and KDE are not limited to linux. I recall people use it on BSD and other architectures as well.
Speaking about ‘rational person’. You keep using the word ‘linux’ everywhere.
Are you capable of reading? I was talking about glibc.
So sorry, Segedunum. Novell has chosen Gnome for the vast majority of their desktop development and no matter how many times you scream “IT IS NOT the default” does not change the fact that Ximian is heading up the desktop efforts at Novell.
Sorry, but you live in a fantasy world – Suse has always picked KDE and now Novell quite clearly has in their choices for OES and SLES – their money-making products. Their core products ship with it, by default – end of story.
The Gnome and Mono stuff is the shite they can’t quite get rid of. It will kill Novell, but hey, that’s Novell.
That tells everybody that you are a not a rational person because you believe that some trolltech license scheme for glibc could have been feasible, rendering linux completely useless.
You’re going in circles again. As I’ve said consistently, it depends on whether it was practical for the software at hand.
You’re getting religious about licensing again. Again, not every piece of software can be available at no cost whatsoever, and you losers are just going to have to realise it.
>The Gnome and Mono stuff is the shite they can’t quite get rid of. It will kill Novell, but hey, that’s Novell.
quite good arguments! If there is something which isn’t compatible with your world than it’s a failure and even will kill a whole company… wake up neo.
quite good arguments! If there is something which isn’t compatible with your world than it’s a failure and even will kill a whole company… wake up neo.
On what basis do I make that statement? Mono has had millions pumped into it for five years with zero (zilch, zip, nada) returns, and it still isn’t usable to attract anybody from the Windows world. There is simply no market for it.
Look at Red Hat. They’ve focused around Gnome in Fedora, and now they’re focusing on Java gcj development with Eclipse (where the market is on Linux and Unix), GTK and Gnome. Fantastic. It remains to be seen whether they’ve made quite the right choices, but that’s something that is going to get them results. Novell and Suse should just focus desktop development around where their expertise is – namely YaST, Qt, KDE and possibly Java. Start a project to enable good Java integration in KDE, support the new KDE Eclipse project (http://kde-eclipse.pwsp.net/) and grow the market. Do something useful for the community and your customers and get rid of this crap.
If Novell continue to be undecided about what they’re using and what they’re presenting to people then Open Suse, and their products, are just going to end up as one big mass of flaming (just look at some of the bug reports) and uncoordinated duplicate efforts that just don’t hand together. No wonder good people are leaving. Over to you Novell.
>Novell and Suse should just focus desktop development around where their expertise is – namely YaST, Qt, KDE and possibly Java.
And what is if their expertise is Gtk+, GNOME and Mono?
Doing something useful for the community and their customers and get rid of this crap.
It’s ok if you like KDE and Qt, i like it too.
But only because you and i like it doesn’t mean that everyone else like it. And if Novell prefere the Gtk+, GNOME and Mono way, so be it.
Not everything is grep just because you don’t like it.
And what is if their expertise is Gtk+, GNOME and Mono?
Suse has a long heritage of YaST, Qt, KDE and Java. Their expertise is not GTK, Gnome and Mono. That side of the business (if you can call it that) simply doesn’t make any money whatsoever for Novell and Suse.
And if Novell prefere the Gtk+, GNOME and Mono way, so be it.
I don’t know why you’re saying that because they don’t, but they appear to be very, very confused and have some internal divisions.
Not everything is grep just because you don’t like it.
You’re misunderstanding this totally. This is based on what Suse/Novell needs to do as a business to provide them sith some direction.
>Suse has a long heritage of YaST, Qt, KDE and Java.
SuSE and java?
But it’s just SuSE, we are talking about Novell, SuSE is just a (small) part of Novell. And if i see what Novell is pushing i see things like Mono (with a Gtk based toolkit), and similar things. If they would prefere Qt and KDE, why they doesnt force Qt as the toolkit for mono?
You’re misunderstanding this totally. This is based on what Suse/Novell needs to do as a business to provide them sith some direction.
And i’m talking what Novell (with or without SuSE) is doing. And i let them decide what they “needs to do as a business to provide them sith some direction.”. But as far as i can see they have decided to go the Mono and Gtk. (Sure without losing the KDE and Qt track)
Just look at: http://forge.novell.com/modules/xftrove/trove_list.php?form_cat=229
Novell has 16 GNOME projects and only 4 KDE projects.
SuSE and java?
Suse includes JBoss, Novell uses a lot of Java internally and SLOX was written with Java.
And if i see what Novell is pushing i see things like Mono (with a Gtk based toolkit), and similar things.
You see Mono enthusiasts pushing it, but no one inside Novell or Suse itself is. Tell me:
– Where are the configuration tools for SLES 9, OES and the NLD written with Mono?
– Where are all the web applications written with Mono for OES and SLES for people to do configuration through a browser?
– Why aren’t any of Novell’s web sites using Mono and ASP.Net?
There aren’t any. Notice I’m talking about Novell’s core products here, not something someone is doing in their spare time.
But as far as i can see they have decided to go the Mono and Gtk.
There’s no evidence for that, other than a few people in the Mono camp mouthing off quite a bit that some people choose to believe. What is written with Mono and GTK that is actually in Novell’s core products? I don’t see Novell basing the company around it.
Novell has 16 GNOME projects and only 4 KDE projects.
Many of those projects aren’t even Gnome or KDE ones. And look at how dormant most of them are.
Anyway, Novell does not have any of those projects. They are open source projects that Novell has given space too but they do not endorse them in any way. The fact that someone has thrown up a site with some Gnome/GTK and KDE/Qt stuff on, as a half-hearted effort, counts for absolutely nothing.
I don’t see any of those projects amounting to anything that Novell is putting in any of its core products either.
> SuSE is just a (small) part of Novell.
SUSE is the part where most of the actual desktop development is taking place.
> If they would prefere Qt and KDE, why they
> doesnt force Qt as the toolkit for mono?
If they would prefer mono why don’t they force it on YaST, and most of their Linux distributions (which default to KDE)?
Pinky-Winky, you should go and print a t-shirt “Novell & Gtk: I want to believe!” and don’t forget to buy another one for your co-troll Lumbergh.
> Just look at:http://forge.novell.com/modules/xftrove/trove_list.php?form_cat=229
> Novell has 16 GNOME projects and only
> 4 KDE projects.
Do you realize that this is nothing else but a community site where anyone can enter a new application? And that the entries are in no way representative for the work that is done at Novell or SUSE? Hell, it doesn’t even list YaST.
You must be really desperate if you have to defend your point of view with random screenshots and orphaned entries in less than popular community sites.
For the nitpicker: I guess you didn’t even look at the entries, otherwise you would have noticed that it’s actually just 12 GNOME applications the remaining 4 are Qt applications.
On what basis do I make that statement? Mono has had millions pumped into it for five years with zero (zilch, zip, nada) returns, and it still isn’t usable to attract anybody from the Windows world. There is simply no market for it.
Haha, how many more millions have been pumped into KDE and by the desktop numbers we can only conclude that KDE is completely worthless too. You are quite insane if you think there is no market for Mono. Get this through your cobweb-infested brain, all of windows is going .NET, so just that fact makes Mono more important than KDE or Qt will ever be.
Look at Red Hat. They’ve focused around Gnome in Fedora, and now they’re focusing on Java gcj development with Eclipse (where the market is on Linux and Unix), GTK and Gnome. Fantastic. It remains to be seen whether they’ve made quite the right choices, but that’s something that is going to get them results.
Have you tried eclipse with GCJ? Bahah, its slow as molasses, and buggy as hell. Why don’t they just wait for GCJ and Classpath to mature before handing off that buggy shit. Just let people download a mature, fast, stable runtime.
. Novell and Suse should just focus desktop development around where their expertise is – namely YaST, Qt, KDE and possibly Java.
Suse is a brand name, not a company. Ximian is in charge of desktop efforts. And obviously Novell as well as Redhat and Sun know that its completely insane to push any meaningful development on a desktop whose toolkit is controlled by the Trolls.
If Novell continue to be undecided about what they’re using and what they’re presenting to people then Open Suse, and their products, are just going to end up as one big mass of flaming (just look at some of the bug reports) and uncoordinated duplicate efforts that just don’t hand together. No wonder good people are leaving. Over to you Novell.
I’m sure Novell appreciates the analysis. I agree with you in a way, Novell should probably ditch KDE completely, instead of pretending they still care about KDE.
Haha, how many more millions have been pumped into KDE…
None whatsoever. I find that comment hilariously funny in view of the millions Eazel burned through on Nautilus (yes a file manager!) before they went out of business and Ximian on Evolution and Mono. How much did KDE spend on Konqueror, Kontact and their development tools?
Nuff said.
Get this through your cobweb-infested brain, all of windows is going .NET, so just that fact makes Mono more important than KDE or Qt will ever be.
You might want to get this through your cobweb infested brain – .-N-E-T i-s a W-i-n-d-o-w-s t-e-c-h-n-o-l-o-g-y. Windows technology is not portable between operating systems and is not portable to Mono. Indigo and Windows Forms are simply the tip of the iceberg. T-h-e m-a-r-k-e-t o-n L-i-n-u-x a-n-d U-n-i-x i-s C-+-+ a-n-d J-a-v-a. That’s where the money is.
M-o-n-o m-a-k-e-s n-o m-o-n-e-y w-h-a-t-s-o-e-v-e-r.
There are also no development tools whatsoever for Mono. That finishes it right there.
Got that? Now wasn’t that fun?
Have you tried eclipse with GCJ? Bahah, its slow as molasses, and buggy as hell.
As far as I’m concerned, Mono is slow as hell, but there you go. Anyway, at the moment, that’s irrelevant as development is continuing. There is a market (you know, money?) for Java that Red Hat wants to get into, plus, there is an IDE and community and development tools around Eclipse. That’s the clincher. Once they get that up and running it’s bye, bye Mono.
Suse is a brand name
Suse is still a large division of Novell, and I wonder why they don’t just get rid of the name and replace it with Novell like they did with Ximian. Funny that.
Ximian is in charge of desktop efforts.
Wonderful and easy statement to make, but unfortunately there is no such thing as Ximian now and as such there is simply no evidence that they are heading anything. Sorry, but you’re fantasising again.
Please, tell us what this mythical Ximian division is up to, what their development efforts are and how we know this is the case. I’d love to know what happened to the Ximian Desktop (are their releases silent and covert now?).
If Ximian were in charge we would see a full-on, supported and focused XD and Gnome desktop with full support for Novell’s admin tools, web applications written with Mono, Gnome tools expanded instead of YaST and Gnome as the default desktop on all their server products. Surprise, surprise, we don’t see that any of that, do we? (ROTFL)
I have a feeling we’ve been down this avenue before, but it’s fun to see you do it again.
know that its completely insane to push any meaningful development on a desktop whose toolkit is controlled by the Trolls.
Well, Sun have actually not come out and ever said Qt licensing or KDE was a problem. If you have a link to a Sun employee that has said that then please share it with us. Gnome was simply the best fit for Sun given their development (they like writing stuff in C and using CORBA).
It doesn’t seem to stop Novell from developing YaST and its modules with Qt and it doesn’t seem to stop them from developing KDE software like TaskJuggler (developed by Suse and Novell employees). Funny that.
I agree with you in a way, Novell should probably ditch KDE
Given that they’re not and they’re using it in core, money-making products like OES and SLES I highly doubt it. But there you go.
I notice you refuse to talk about Novell’s core products though. Funny that.
instead of pretending they still care about KDE.
Well, considering they actually use it and develop meaningful software for their products with it it’s obvious they do. I don’t know why they pretend to care about Gnome by hyping meaningless software like F-Spot, which Novell itself in no way endorses, but there you go.
I love the ringer you put yourself through and I love your partiality to lost causes.
None whatsoever. I find that comment hilariously funny in view of the millions Eazel burned through on Nautilus (yes a file manager!) before they went out of business and Ximian on Evolution and Mono. How much did KDE spend on Konqueror, Kontact and their development tools?
Nuff said.
Ahh, so Suse and Mandrake and Trolltech have not spent any money on KDE? You’re in a delusional state, you said “none whatsoever”
You might want to get this through your cobweb infested brain – .-N-E-T i-s a W-i-n-d-o-w-s t-e-c-h-n-o-l-o-g-y. Windows technology is not portable between operating systems and is not portable to Mono.
Are you on crack? There are official ECMA standards for .NET, unlike Java. Mono has implemented them all along with the vast majority of the non-covered libraries. You’re just lying when you say .NET is not portable. It’s already portable. You might as well give it up at this point.
Wonderful and easy statement to make, but unfortunately there is no such thing as Ximian now and as such there is simply no evidence that they are heading anything. Sorry, but you’re fantasising again.
As you are fantasizing that there is a Suse company now. The names don’t matter because its the people behind them.
If Ximian were in charge we would see a full-on, supported and focused XD and Gnome desktop with full support for Novell’s admin tools, web applications written with Mono, Gnome tools expanded instead of YaST and Gnome as the default desktop on all their server products. Surprise, surprise, we don’t see that any of that, do we? (ROTFL)
Maybe I need to educate you on development. These things take time and YaST was already written. Why is Novell funding so much more Gnome/Mono development than KDE? Answer that one.
Well, Sun have actually not come out and ever said Qt licensing or KDE was a problem. If you have a link to a Sun employee that has said that then please share it with us
Are you delusional enough to think that the Qt license was absolutely no factor in the decision to go with Gnome? Once again, you prove that you don’t understand the business decision making process.
Given that they’re not and they’re using it in core, money-making products like OES and SLES I highly doubt it. But there you go.
I notice you refuse to talk about Novell’s core products though. Funny that.
And once again, why is Novell “wasting” so much more funding of Gnome/Mono if Qt and KDE are perfectly fine solutions? So either Novell is stupid or not. You seem to have a hard time making up your mind.
Well, considering they actually use it and develop meaningful software for their products with it it’s obvious they do. I don’t know why they pretend to care about Gnome by hyping meaningless software like F-Spot, which Novell itself in no way endorses, but there you go.
I love the ringer you put yourself through and I love your partiality to lost causes.
Ahh, so no Gnome or Mono software is meaningful – is that what you’re saying? Obviously Novell has a different opinion on that.
The ringer that you’ve put yourself in is that you see what’s going on, but because of your emotional attachment to KDE you are blinded to reality. See, I could care less about Gnome or KDE. I don’t get silly with operating systems like zealots. I’m presenting you objectivity beause I’m not a fanboy.
Ahh, so Suse and Mandrake and Trolltech have not spent any money on KDE?
They certainly haven’t spent millions have they?
You’re in a delusional state, you said “none whatsoever”
Deflection doesn’t work I’m afraid.
Are you on crack? There are official ECMA standards for .NET, unlike Java.
Ahh, right. So the Windows technology .Net depends on is part of the ECMA?! That’s perfectly alright then.
As you are fantasizing that there is a Suse company now. The names don’t matter because its the people behind them.
Yer. Suse still exists and Ximian doesn’t. Should tell you at least something.
Maybe I need to educate you on development. These things take time and YaST was already written. Why is Novell funding so much more Gnome/Mono development than KDE? Answer that one.
Take time?! After two years you would expect to see some movement in that direction, wouldn’t you? Please, like someone said earlier on here just buy yourself a “I believe” T-shirt.
Mind you, Gnome and GTK development is quite slow.
Are you delusional enough to think that the Qt license was absolutely no factor in the decision to go with Gnome?
There is no decision to go with Gnome.
Please point me to a link by a senior Novell Executive (there’s one from Red Hat) that says they are deciding to go with Gnome, apart from the fanboys at ex-Ximian (who seem to have died down strangely these days). And please, point me to all the Mono, Gnome and GTK usage in their core products such as web development tools for OES written with Mono or replacement of YaST with Gnome tools.
And once again, why is Novell “wasting” so much more funding of Gnome/Mono if Qt and KDE are perfectly fine solutions? So either Novell is stupid or not.
Again, you’re stirring round all the gears trying to find some drive that isn’t there. Novell is a company that has never been able to make its mind up very well, but quite clearly, they’re not moving to Gnome, GTK and Mono – that’s the point. Maybe the bought Ximian, decided they’d made a bit of a mistake and can’t bring thmselves to make a difficult decision – who knows?
Ahh, so no Gnome or Mono software is meaningful – is that what you’re saying? Obviously Novell has a different opinion on that.
Yes, they quite clearly do ;-). Hint – read what you’ve written :-).
Besides, how important do you think a free piece of photo management software is to Novell?! You’d think it was a vitally important bit of software the way they talk sometimes. Obviously, no one says that about Digikam, but it still kicks F-Spot’s backside.
The ringer that you’ve put yourself in is that you see what’s going on, but because of your emotional attachment to KDE you are blinded to reality.
Yawn. Please reply to my comments on why all of what you’re banging on about isn’t an issue. Those comments certainly aren’t emotional, which is why you don’t want to go back to them.
See, I could care less about Gnome or KDE. I don’t get silly with operating systems like zealots. I’m presenting you objectivity
Oh yer, your objectivity shines through. You love going on about non-existant decisions at Novell to go with Gnome, GTK and Mono (no evidence whatsoever) and you love to bang on about licensing problems blindly even when you’ve been pointed to comments which explain why they aren’t issues. Oh, and like all these fanboys you bang on about developing for nothing which no one in the real software development world does. I hate to break this to you, but the people using and developing with KDE, Windows and Macs care not for such issues – that’s the objectivity I’m getting at.
beause I’m not a fanboy.
Nope, you’re totally objective and not a fanboy in the slightest 🙂 *PDROTFL* (Practically Dies Rolling On The Floor Laughing).
They certainly haven’t spent millions have they?
So Suse, Mandrake, Trolltech and whoever have not spent millions over the years on developing, maintenance, and packaging of KDE. You fail it again Seg.
Ahh, right. So the Windows technology .Net depends on is part of the ECMA?! That’s perfectly alright then.
Yeah, it’s great that it’s a standard…unlike Java.
Yer. Suse still exists and Ximian doesn’t. Should tell you at least something.
Suse is a brand name. The company Suse doesn’t exist.
There is no decision to go with Gnome.
But once again, you won’t face the fact. Novell funds many more times on Gnome/Mono development than KDE. I know you hate that.
Again, you’re stirring round all the gears trying to find some drive that isn’t there. Novell is a company that has never been able to make its mind up very well, but quite clearly, they’re not moving to Gnome, GTK and Mono – that’s the point. Maybe the bought Ximian, decided they’d made a bit of a mistake and can’t bring thmselves to make a difficult decision – who knows?
You’re flailing around aimlessly wishing that the Ximian guys had never been brought aboard, that Novell wasn’t spending a lot more money on Gnome and Mono than KDE, and once again in a fantasy world where such facts don’t exist. In your twisted mind, Novell must have just bought Ximian just so some guys could get paid to do hobbyist stuff that will have no future on the Novell platform. You are hilarious man.
Oh, and like all these fanboys you bang on about developing for nothing which no one in the real software development world does. I hate to break this to you, but the people using and developing with KDE, Windows and Macs care not for such issues – that’s the objectivity I’m getting at.
Let’s see Mac development is completely free once you have the box. Windows development is either free or much cheaper even if you buy VS. Any more non-objectivity you care to share?
> Suse is a brand name. The company Suse
> doesn’t exist.
This is inaccurate as well.
SUSE Linux is a business line as well as a business unit. All recent announcements (including the NLD) on novell.com refer to the “SUSE Linux Business Unit”. The same is true for the job titles of the employers which refer to the business unit as well. The legal entity of the company which is called “SUSE GmbH” also still exists.
If you don’t trust Novell with regard to this then you might want to look up “SUSE” in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SUSE
or
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suse
Both of them state that SUSE is also a company and that “The company is owned by Novell, Inc.”.
And after dancing I just walked by the SUSE Building which is also clearly labeled as a “Novell Business” Unit. But of course you won’t believe me with regard to this as I’m part of the big conspiracy 😉
SUSE Linux is a business line as well as a business unit. All recent announcements (including the NLD) on novell.com refer to the “SUSE Linux Business Unit”.
You’re confused as well. A business unit is just a division within a company. Microsoft has “business units” too, but they are not indepdent organizations. http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/articles/business.asp
Novell owns the Suse brand. Everything is Novell, no matter how many times you germans wish it wasn’t true.
And after dancing I just walked by the SUSE Building which is also clearly labeled as a “Novell Business” Unit. But of course you won’t believe me with regard to this as I’m part of the big conspiracy 😉
A conspiracy? You’re a little paranoid aren’t you? Oh wait…you’re german. That explains it all.
So Suse, Mandrake, Trolltech and whoever have not spent millions over the years on developing, maintenance, and packaging of KDE.
No, they haven’t spent millions on software development like Konqueror or Kontact like there has been for Nautilus or Evolution. Ergo, KDE development is cheaper and more cost effective – everything open source development needs to be.
Nice way to dodge the actual issue. I don’t know whether you just do it, but it is funny.
You’re flailing around aimlessly wishing that the Ximian guys had never been brought aboard, that Novell wasn’t spending a lot more money on Gnome and Mono than KDE
Thanks for confirming that lots of money is being thrown (and has been) at GTK and Gnome, and isn’t making it any better 🙂 *ROTFL*. You throw yourself into it every time.
Let’s see Mac development is completely free once you have the box. Windows development is either free or much cheaper even if you buy VS.
Mac OS and Windows and surrounding software isn’t free. The point is that money goes in somewhere to improve the software. No piece of software of any reasonable quality is completely free for everything. But, you know that already as I’ve explained that.
But, you can’t see the correlation and just want to repeat ths same meaningless stuff.
> As you are fantasizing that there is a Suse company now.
He is not fantasizing, he is simply right about that.
> Why is Novell funding so much more Gnome/Mono development than KDE? Answer that one.
How about you starting to prove your statements first? Do you have numbers? Of course you have not.
> I’m presenting you objectivity beause I’m not a fanboy.
Lol, the biggest joke and lie of the day.
“Are you on crack? There are official ECMA standards for .NET”
That would be C# and CLI.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/netframework/ecma/
“Are you on crack? There are official ECMA standards for .NET”
That would be C# and CLI.
A lot of people miss the difference between the EMCA standard for techologies implemented by Microsoft as part of their .Net technology and .Net itself.
.Net is also including non-standard extensions and technologies and the Mono project doesn’t claim to be a .Net implementation but tells everyone on the website that they implement the same standards and try to be as compatible as possibile to the Microsoft extensions.
Which results in a situation where a Mono application is very likely runnable on a .Net installation but not the other way around.
Which means that developers working with .Net have transferable skills and some portable code, but very likely also a lot of non portable code.
Getting developers to work with Mono is the true challenge for the project, not letting everybody believe Mono will be able to run .Net applications unmodified
“Which results in a situation where a Mono application is very likely runnable on a .Net installation but not the other way around. ”
Sounds like a win-win for Microsoft. Not only do they clean-up in the Windows space. But there’s an easy flow of F/OSS apps into their domain.
“I’m presenting you objectivity beause I’m not a fanboy.”
Are you serious? You are very funny guy. You keep calling people zealots or fanboys, but you are so stupid that you don’t understand that you are the biggest fanboy/zealot here.
>> does not change the fact that Ximian is heading up >> the desktop efforts at Novell.
This is inaccurate, too. The product manager of the NLD e.g. is Guy Lundardi, who is neither involved with KDE nor Gnome.
For SUSE Linux the KDE/Qt people are responsible for the KDE desktop as well as the administration tools and the Gnome guys are just responsible for the Gnome desktop.
Sorry, but you live in a fantasy world – Suse has always picked KDE and now Novell quite clearly has in their choices for OES and SLES – their money-making products. Their core products ship with it, by default – end of story.
Suse doesn’t exist anymore. It’s Novell and they have put Ximian in chare of the desktop efforts. No matter how much you hate that, you can’t change it
The Gnome and Mono stuff is the shite they can’t quite get rid of. It will kill Novell, but hey, that’s Novell.
Can’t get rid of and shit? The shit is the Qt license and that’s why no big vendor will touch KDE. Mono is a fine framework and will be increasingly popular as time goes on for the mere fact that everything in windows will be .NET eventually.
You’re going in circles again. As I’ve said consistently, it depends on whether it was practical for the software at hand.
You’re still trying to justify a possible dual-licensed glibc. You have no concept of how business works.
You’re getting religious about licensing again. Again, not every piece of software can be available at no cost whatsoever, and you losers are just going to have to realise it.
It’s you losers that chose a toolkit with a bad license. See Segedunum, I know its hard for your limited mental capacity to understand, but Qt is a *library* (not an app), and the base of the entire desktop. That’s why the LSB will not consider Qt
> Suse doesn’t exist anymore.
Sure it does. Both the company and the product.
> It’s Novell and they have put Ximian in chare of the desktop efforts.
Ximian and the Ximian brand doesn’t exist anymore. And former Ximian employees are only in charge of the GNOME desktop.
Don’t bother with Lumberg. He’s just a bitter alcoholic without a real life who resorts to insults and ad hominem attacks as soon as he runs out of arguments. Facts will bring you nowhere with him, I personally think he’s well into delirium tremens.
Suse doesn’t exist anymore.
Hmm. So that’s why there is Open Suse and we still have Suse Pro and SLES.
It’s Novell and they have put Ximian in chare of the desktop efforts.
Where? And I’ll point out that there definitely is no such thing as Ximian now.
Can’t get rid of and shit? The shit is the Qt license and that’s why no big vendor will touch KDE
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……… Please reply to the above comments and arguments as to why it isn’t a problem. Saying it several thousand times does not make it so.
You’re still trying to justify a possible dual-licensed glibc. You have no concept of how business works.
You have no concept of what software development is, the effort required or the investment needed to do it. That’s why dual licensing exists.
That is business.
It’s you losers that chose a toolkit with a bad license.
Yawn. Please reply to the many comments on the subject on this article as to why it isn’t so. Simply saying it several thousand times makes no difference whatsoever.
You are a laugh, I’ll grant you.
Hmm. So that’s why there is Open Suse and we still have Suse Pro and SLES.
They are brand names. Does the windows company exist?
Where? And I’ll point out that there definitely is no such thing as Ximian now.
Yep, same as Suse.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……… Please reply to the above comments and arguments as to why it isn’t a problem. Saying it several thousand times does not make it so.
Yes, and obviously I’m not the only one that thinks its a problem or it wouldn’t be a big issue and it wouldn’t be a problem for inclusion in LSB. Saying it’s not an issue a thousand times doesn’t make the Qt license liability go away.
You have no concept of what software development is, the effort required or the investment needed to do it. That’s why dual licensing exists.
And you have no concept of how to develop markets. Once again, if glibc was dual-licensed like Qt or even if the kernel’s GPL license extended the viralness into userspace then linux would be worthless.
Yawn. Please reply to the many comments on the subject on this article as to why it isn’t so. Simply saying it several thousand times makes no difference whatsoever.
Yes, I know you wish the issue would just go away, but it’ll just be a bigger issue if the linux desktop is ever meaningful. Please reply to my point regarding glibc and if the linux kernel was viral into userspace.
Yes, and obviously I’m not the only one that thinks its a problem or it wouldn’t be a big issue
Issue for who? The only one coming up with this stuff are idiots like you and Tomothy Butler (who doesn’t understand the issues anyway).
Saying it’s not an issue a thousand times doesn’t make the Qt license liability go away.
And I’ve itemised why it isn’t an issue about a hundred comments ago. Go and reply to that please, because you’re only making yourself look more of a twit than you already are.
Once again, if glibc was dual-licensed like Qt or even if the kernel’s GPL license extended the viralness into userspace then linux would be worthless.
Viral, viral…yawn. You sound like Microsoft. Obviously the GPL hasn’t been a problem for the Linux kernel.
And where does the investment come from to develop this software, or indeed any software? What happens when giving up spare time isn’t enough to make the software of a good enough quality? What happens when open source developers have to be paid to work full-time? Where does that money come from? Where does the investment come from for Microsoft to develop what they do in Windows?
If it isn’t practical to develop and give away completely for free for every purpose it isn’t practical – simple as that. That doesn’t mean you can’t do it though, as I’ve pointed out. In the case of glibc it is, in the case of desktop development tools it isn’t because it is too complex. Simple.
I know you don’t understand this because you have an extremely short memory and I can see you’ve never managed a software business, seen one in action or understood what needs to be funded by what.
Yes, I know you wish the issue would just go away, but it’ll just be a bigger issue if the linux desktop is ever meaningful.
Yes, you think it’s an issue….yada, yada, yada. Go back and reply to me comments as to why it isn’t.
Please reply to my point regarding glibc and if the linux kernel was viral into userspace.
Please don’t try and deflect the issue at hand. Go back and reply to my comments to Timothy Butler on the issue as to why it isn’t one – one by one. If
And your point is irrelevant. Viral into userspace?!! Well it isn’t is it, and it has nothing to do with glibc? Do you have any real clue at all as to how a Linux distribution is actually structured, and how GPL compatible licenses make your points completely redundant?
Since you’re spouting exactly the same crap as Mr. Butler, might I point you to my reply to him:
http://www.osnews.com/read_thread.php?news_id=11614&comment_id=2051…
There. I’ve even given you a link to read.
Issue for who? The only one coming up with this stuff are idiots like you and Tomothy Butler (who doesn’t understand the issues anyway).
Plenty of people understand the issue. Your blinded fanboyism has caused you to lose sight of the issue.
Viral, viral…yawn. You sound like Microsoft. Obviously the GPL hasn’t been a problem for the Linux kernel.
Haha, because its not viral into userspace. Once again, if the linux kernel was viral into userspace it would be useless. You know that, I know that, everybody knows that.
And where does the investment come from to develop this software, or indeed any software? What happens when giving up spare time isn’t enough to make the software of a good enough quality? What happens when open source developers have to be paid to work full-time? Where does that money come from? Where does the investment come from for Microsoft to develop what they do in Windows?
What is the appeal of linux? Let me clue you in because you might subscribe to the FSF/Stallman cult mailing list. It’s not because the source code is there, it’s because it’s free as in beer.
I know you don’t understand this because you have an extremely short memory and I can see you’ve never managed a software business, seen one in action or understood what needs to be funded by what.
Obviously, you are clueless about markets. We wouldn’t have given linux a second look years ago if it wasn’t free and if the kernel wasn’t viral. That’s why companies want linux. They want to add their in-house and proprietary apps on top of the platform that is free. If that wasn’t the case, then they would have just been using proprietary Unix.
And your point is irrelevant. Viral into userspace?!! Well it isn’t is it, and it has nothing to do with glibc? Do you have any real clue at all as to how a Linux distribution is actually structured, and how GPL compatible licenses make your points completely redundant?
Once again, you refuse to address the issues I’ve laid out. Glibc has the wrappers to system calls as well as having the c library. glibc is the most important userspace piece of software on linux. If it was viral like straight GPL then it would be useless and a replacement would have to be written. Are you actually disagreeing with that?
Since you’re spouting exactly the same crap as Mr. Butler, might I point you to my reply to him:
http://www.osnews.com/read_thread.php?news_id=11614&comment_id=…
There. I’ve even given you a link to read.
Why do you keep on trying to dodge the issues, by pointing back to your conversation with him. Address the issues I’m talking to you about.
Just wait to see the fallout if GPL v3 extends the viralness to web services. You think companies are just going to throw up their hands and say “if stallman thinks its ok, then i guess we do to”? Expect major forkage of MySQL the day they switch their license.
Seg, you don’t seem to understand the big picture. Trolltech has every right to make money off of their software. The problem is with having that software, under the current license, being the base for a major desktop platform.
I’ve said it many times before, and I’m sure I’ll say it many times to come. If Qt had been bought by say IBM years ago, the license liberalized to say LGPL or GPL+exceptions, and Gnome had never been started, things would be much better now. Seriously!, it would. You would have “the one” platform. Hell, even proprietary Unix had agreed on Motif and CDE(IIRC).
You would have the one platform for everybody to target and some ankle-biters that would keep KDE on its toes. I guess some people are so used to the status quo and what they’ve been told what to think that they can’t see the big picture.
Haha, because its not viral into userspace.
Yer and? You just use a GPL compatible license, or dual license and pay if necessary if the software demands it. That’s why Qt GPL licensing is not, and will not, be viral.
Thanks. You’ve just proved my point about Qt usage in KDE. Well done.
Let me clue you in because you might subscribe to the FSF/Stallman cult mailing list. It’s not because the source code is there, it’s because it’s free as in beer.
And yet the software still has to be good enough, free or not free. To get good enough software people spend billions upon billions. People like free beer software, but to get the stuff that’s good enough the cheque books come out. Why do you think Microsoft has made what they have.
If it was viral like straight GPL then it would be useless and a replacement would have to be written.
If it needed lots of developers to develop it and those developers needed to be paid for then you’d see a dual-licensed glibc or one controlled and licensed by Sun, IBM or some other Unix company. As it is, it doesn’t so we’re alright.
Why do you keep on trying to dodge the issues, by pointing back to your conversation with him. Address the issues I’m talking to you about.
Err, no, because that’s where it all stems from. You’re complaining about Qt-type licensing for development and think it’s a real problem – that’s why not. You don’t want to go through it though, so this whole little escapade is pointless.
You’ve proved my point above anyway, so nuff said here in this thread of comments.
Yer and? You just use a GPL compatible license, or dual license and pay if necessary if the software demands it. That’s why Qt GPL licensing is not, and will not, be viral.
Qt is viral unless you pay for it. If glibc was viral like Qt is then it would be worthless.
And yet the software still has to be good enough, free or not free. To get good enough software people spend billions upon billions. People like free beer software, but to get the stuff that’s good enough the cheque books come out. Why do you think Microsoft has made what they have.
Once again, you prove your cluelessness. Businesses don’t give a rats ass who developed the kernel and the userspace and who funded them. They want something that is free. If it wasn’t free then the whole appeal is lost.
If it needed lots of developers to develop it and those developers needed to be paid for then you’d see a dual-licensed glibc or one controlled and licensed by Sun, IBM or some other Unix company. As it is, it doesn’t so we’re alright.
Put down the crackpipe. If glibc had been dual-licensed by Sun or IBM or anybody else a new libc would have been written. Get that through your head. What is your major malfunction?
Err, no, because that’s where it all stems from. You’re complaining about Qt-type licensing for development and think it’s a real problem – that’s why not. You don’t want to go through it though, so this whole little escapade is pointless.
I think it’s a problem for KDE in the long run, as the reasoning for Novell, RedHat, and Sun going with Gnome. If you don’t think its a problem, fine. But obviously the aforementioned companies do think it is. Please convince them.
They want something that is free. If it wasn’t free then the whole appeal is lost.
Really? I’ll have to send back all that software I’ve bought and demand it be free. Unbelievable.
Put down the crackpipe. If glibc had been dual-licensed by Sun or IBM or anybody else a new libc would have been written.
Possibly, but given the complexity of the software it depends on whether a free one would be equal to or better than one developed by focused and paid developers.
I think it’s a problem for KDE in the long run, as the reasoning for Novell, RedHat, and Sun going with Gnome.
Scratch Novell from your list.
But obviously the aforementioned companies do think it is.
As I’ve asked. Give me a comment from a Sun executive that that was the reason Gnome was picked. But, of course, you can’t.
> They are brand names. Does the windows company exist?
No, but the “SUSE Linux Products GmbH” (GmbH is a German company type) exists.
See Segedunum, I know its hard for your limited mental capacity to understand, but Qt is a *library* (not an app)
Yer, and? I mean I appreciate you going roung the houses and all, but – and?
and the base of the entire desktop.
Really? As you’ve said – Qt is simply a library! You are a fish.
That’s why the LSB will not consider Qt
Oh dear. Shame.
“You’re still trying to justify a possible dual-licensed glibc. You have no concept of how business works. ”
Should an open source projects not started by a company do what the companies want? No. Does someone have to use qt to write an app that runs in kde? I think not. Than you see: if a company wants to use the ‘better’-licensed, whatever you mean by it., it can. So what effect does it have on kde? besides than that they’ve got a way better toolkit? Trolltech will keep on existing, and if not, everything is under the bsd-licence, so KDE will always be able to use qt. And everyone who doesn’t want to use it doesn’t have to. I’ve seen you repeat often that it’s a bad dual licence, and that everyone who doesn’t see it don’t know anything how business work, well, fund your statement please? Telling something is bad, doesn’t make it bad you know. Well, it can make people believe it’s bad, but those are microsoft tricks, it’s not something to be expected from an open-source guy, he should know that choice is what makes linux, and taking that away will kill it.
> Novell has chosen Gnome for the vast majority
> of their desktop development
This is inaccurate. There are basically two kinds of desktop software at Novell: software that is critical for Novell’s success and pet projects. pet projects is software that Novell employees are working on in their spare time, whenever they are not not busy with something more important or simply software that is created by people who have been employed by SUSE / Novell because SUSE / Novell wants to give back to the community.
Among such “pet projects” are certainly “F-Spot”, “Beagle”, “TaskJuggler”, “Kooka”, “amaroK”, “vym”, “KSysguard”, “Kontact” and lots of other KDE/Qt and Gtk Software. Due to the fact that SUSE existed quite a bit longer than Ximian and had more ressources to let people work on such stuff in doubt I’d argue that Qt has a higher percentage here.
Then there is software that was specifically created to build the foundation of a specific product that actually creates significant revenue. YaST and lots of other Qt software comes to my mind with regard to this. And I’m sure that Gnome proponents can name a lot of other software, too.
Due to history Novell/SUSE has certainly a strong preference for Qt/KDE technology while Novell/Ximian has a strong preference for Gtk (the latter call themselves and their portfolio that was bought by Novell just “Novell” these days because the Ximian brand got deprecated). Novell as a whole has no preference however.
During the last quarter Novell hired lots of KDE/Qt “hackers” and they are still hiring
http://www.novell.com/offices/emea/jobs/germany/
How do I know about this stuff? Well I worked for SUSE for a few years, I still have a very good relationship with many developers there and I follow SUSE’s progress actively (which isn’t too hard as I live basically next door in Nuremberg 😉
Thats because right now theres no reason to do it. Gnome 3 will break binary compatability, and so far there aren’t really any compelling reasons to do that. About the only one people mention is topbar application menus, and even that is likely possible with modification of 2.
Besides its not like there aren’t major changes coming in Gnome 2.12. Gnome is already getting cairo to do its drawing in gtk 2.8, and there are already tons of bindings for high level languages.
> LMAO did you even read the first paragraph of the link you posted?
So? I’ve never said you couldn’t choose betwen KDE and gnome in NLD. Just that gnome is novell’s default choice.
Just that gnome is novell’s default choice.
Which isn’t true. There is no default choice in the NLD, and Suse, SLES and OES all default to KDE. Therefore, KDE is Novell’s default choice.
Back to basics though. Do you know what default means?
>Therefore, KDE is Novell’s default choice.
Yes, that’s why they maintain gtk bindings for there new development framework (mono) and why they write programs like beagle and f-spot for GNOME… oops, is there a error in the matrix?
I think it doesn’t care which desktop is the “default”, you can install KDE, GNOME or every other Desktop on every Distribution.
But i think it’s obvious that Novell preferes Gtk+ if it comes to the toolkit.
Is it bad? No!
Does it make Qt a worse toolkit? No!
Does it have any influence on people who like to use KDE and Qt? No!
So why panic? Everytime someone say something positive about Gtk+ or GNOME a lot of KDE people come along and whine about it? Why? Doesn’t they have enough faith in their desktop and toolkit?
I’m using KDE and develop with Qt, but i had no problem if Ubuntu decided to make a GNOME Distribution. And i have no problem if Novell and RedHat prefere Gtk+.
Why so many KDE people get scathingly if someone don’t want to use their desktop/toolkit in the first place? I think i will never understand it…
/me silently points out that this thread is about KDE, and contains mostly ridiculous claims from Gnome lusers that Gnome is the standard and default, plus the various and equally ridiculous attacks and false assertions on and about KDE, QT and Trolltech by various morons posing as friends of Gnome.
“…and contains mostly ridiculous claims from Gnome lusers…”
That took some courage to admit. Most would have said “all”.
OK, it’s in the middle of the night here, so I guess I wasn’t 100% clear about what I meant.
I suppose I should have written “and most of them are ridiculous claims..” or something like that. I’m too tired right now.
The only complaint from the Gnome “usability” troll-brigade I’ve ever recognized as somewhat valid is that the default are, shall we say a bit exaggerated? However, it’s a lot easier to fix, than if you’re unhappy with the defaults in Gnome, and really nothing to make such a huge stink about.
“The only complaint from the Gnome “usability” troll-brigade I’ve ever recognized as somewhat valid is that the default are, shall we say a bit exaggerated? However, it’s a lot easier to fix, than if you’re unhappy with the defaults in Gnome, and really nothing to make such a huge stink about.”
Well I’m going to address a point that get’s short thrift from the FOSS community. First while there are “‘usability’ troll-brigade”s (comparable to “IANA…”) The field of HCI (a subset of a larger field) is legitimate and recognized worldwide. And with the new brain research coming from the medical field. One can get some ideas of the physical mechanisms behind the principles. Apple (and many others down the years) have demonstrated that indeed HCI isn’t simply the experts blowing smoke.
So rather than listen to the “‘usability’ troll-brigade”. What do the HCI experts have to say about the KDE desktop? And more importantly, is anyone listening?
/me silently points out that this thread is about KDE and the whole GNOME vs KDE vs Gtk vs Qt discussion started because some KDE users had started whine about a previous articel were someone have write something about Qt what they don’t like.
Funny guy huh? The point was that someone asked asked who Timothy R. Butler is, and was told this guy “is a tool and a troll and here is the proof”. This guy decided to jump in and “defend” himself by repeating the bullshit (KDE should drop Qt) and moronic FUD (shareholders might force Trolltech to commit suicide) that had already got debunked once, Gnome lusers and known trolls like Lumberg tuning in, and voilá, here we are.
Looking for trolls? Have a look in the mirror.
This guy has a opinion about the Qt license. You can have the same or a different, who cares. The topic was not about this guys opinion of Qt, some “KDE-fans” has made it to such a topic.
I know GNOME/Gtk+ people who think that it woudl be better if Gtk+ would be GPL too. You can like this opinion or not, but neither you like it nor you doesn’t like it doesn’t make a person with this opinion a troll.
There are good arguments why such a toolkit should be GPL or LGPL, depending on your weighting of some arguments.
Now, look.
This guy has repeatedly been told, repeatedly, *why* his arguments are stupid, crap, FUD, invalid, flawed and useless. Yet he has to my knowledge never addressed those replies, beyond pretending he was talking about something else, and then repeat the same crap again. IMO that makes a troll, not someone you should listen to. Of course, if you are part of his fanclub, I suppose there is little hope for you.
Have a nice Sunday.
/me silently points out that this thread is about KDE and the whole GNOME vs KDE vs Gtk vs Qt discussion started because some KDE users had started whine about a previous articel were someone have write something about Qt what they don’t like.
I know, if the idiot KDE fanboys would have kept their trap shut and hadn’t started to attack the author of the article the licensing issue wouldn’t have come up.
But now they’re getting bitchslapped on the licensing issue again. Man, what a bunch of idiots. They bring it on themselves.
if the idiot KDE fanboys would have kept their trap shut and hadn’t started to attack the author of the article the licensing issue wouldn’t have come up.
Temper, temper. The fact is that that article by Tim Butler is quoted above and it is still total and utter crap.
He doesn’t understand licensing issues whatsoever (he thinks everything becomes defacto GPL’d!!) and he doesn’t understand how different toolkits could, and will, be used with KDE. His ludicrous thinking was blown clean out of the water by me and I haven’t seen any comeback on it whatsoever.
And before you come up with the usual comments, I suggest you actually reply to my original comment reply to T. Butler, itemise them and tell us what the problems actually are. You only have to look through previous comments.
If you can’t do it then you can stop the broken record act. You’re only wasting your time and your bandwidth.
Temper, temper. The fact is that that article by Tim Butler is quoted above and it is still total and utter crap.
Translation: You don’t like that people bring up the Qt license situation, therefore it’s crap.
He doesn’t understand licensing issues whatsoever (he thinks everything becomes defacto GPL’d!!)
I know that the GPL doesn’t mandate the GPL license, but the fact that linking to Qt mandates open source or pay is the point. LSB calls this “strings attached”
and he doesn’t understand how different toolkits could, and will, be used with KDE. His ludicrous thinking was blown clean out of the water by me and I haven’t seen any comeback on it whatsoever.
What do you mean used with KDE? I would love if KDE used a different toolkit. I guess you’re talking about the eventual of inclusion of Dbus into KDE so that gnome apps can talk(IPC) to KDE apps and vice versa. I wonder if Stallman would like to address that issue in GPL v3
And before you come up with the usual comments, I suggest you actually reply to my original comment reply to T. Butler, itemise them and tell us what the problems actually are. You only have to look through previous comments.
I’ve already read the comments and the reason that the Qt license came up is because you kde fanboys brought it up. I’ve already explained the problems.
If you can’t do it then you can stop the broken record act. You’re only wasting your time and your bandwidth.
But you keep on coming back to the thread for more:)
I don’t really see the problem here. To me KDE seems more logical so I use it. If somebody finds Gnome more logical than he should use Gnome.
Ever had the idea that there are different ways of thinking?
For example look at Basic: most people think it’s a dead easy programming language, yet I find it not logical at all so I keep using Pascal. Please don’t get this wrong: I don’t want to start another flame war! It’s just an example.
So please stop telling people that their way of thinking is wrong!
> Just that gnome is novell’s default choice.
Their is no default choice. And Novell is pursuing a desktop agnostic approach as announced on Brainshare conference.
There is no default choice in the NLD, and Suse, SLES and OES all default to KDE. Therefore, KDE is Novell’s default choice.
Exactly, and more important those are the majority of Linux boxes shipped by Novell. Making KDE the default chosen by Novell’s customers.
By being short-sighted and using a toolkit with a bad license it has split the developer community and drained away limited resources on duplication of effort.
If KDE had chosen a toolkit with a proper license, then there would be no Gnome, there would be one desktop (like there is one kernel, one glibc, one low-level windowing environment…) and linux would have had a chance at having a significant piece of the desktop pie.
“If KDE had chosen a toolkit with a proper license, then there would be no Gnome, there would be one desktop (like there is one kernel, one glibc, one low-level windowing environment…) and linux would have had a chance at having a significant piece of the desktop pie.”
How…Windowish.
How…Windowish.
This is so simple, but the groupthinking fanboys will never get it, because they’re….well groupthinkers.
If there was two completely incompatible low-level windowing systems…Xorg or Xfree86 and something else completely incompatible you would have even more of a headache then you have today – or two kernels that were completely incompatible.
But continue to believe that the status quo is great. I guess in the “spirit” of competition we should really have about 10 desktop environments with each having about 10% user share. Yippee, hooray.
Oh well, at least we have a real Unix desktop – OSX.
“If there was two completely incompatible low-level windowing systems…Xorg or Xfree86 and something else completely incompatible you would have even more of a headache then you have today – or two kernels that were completely incompatible.”
Well, if the world was like many gtk+ gnome fanboys would like it to have (judging from this site), there would be no problem. It’s not KDE’s fault, nor GNOME’s fault that one package from one distribution doesn’t work on another distro. In a complete open-source world (which is from what I get, the only way gnome people tend to want to see how the world is/should be, rather than working together with companies and achieving in getting the best technical solution), every distro can make up for that with it’s own libraries. A desktop environment is just that: it’s there to work with.
That ubuntu is making itself incompatible with other distros is a bigger nightmare (at least from the perspective you’re using), than kde using qt and gnome using gtk. They’re just tools you know, and the only things that matter are that they do what they’re created for. The licensing of qt has nothing to do with it. I fail to see why a community driven by achieving the best technical product around, would prefer a lesser product, just because of some crazy licensing, which has in fact no effect on open source products, just on closed source? what does a company have to do to make it right?
*Sarcasm mode*: “Should it use lgpl-software and close all the rest of it’s software? rather than gpl-ing its code?”
>just because of some crazy licensing, which has in fact no effect on open source products, just on closed source?
i dosn’t understand it too.
Why is it that every article related to KDE. There are +150 posts and 130+ posts are from GNOME fanboys about Qt:s license. If there is a GNOME article there is ~30 comment and no KDE fanboys whining about GNOME. I think this is because GNOME fanboys are such a losers that are afraid because KDE has better technology, community, toolkit, framework, more users etc. KDE fanboys has nothing to afraid so they don’t go and whine in GNOME related articles.
I think GNOME is going to fork because Novell wants integrade Mono and RedHat wants to integrade Classpath.
My English sucks, but hope you understand what I’m saying.
> Why is it that every article related to KDE. There
> are +150 posts and 130+ posts are from GNOME
> fanboys about Qt:s license.
I think you’re not doing them justice. They have more than one subject in their repertoire:
There’s
– the license troll
– the clutter troll
– the bloat troll
– the “all KDE does is copy from Windows/OsX/BeOS” troll
Yawn.
Even if Suse is only a small part of Novell, it is the part of Novell’s Linux business making money. So even some employees at Novell have some projects using Mono and GTK, the part where they actually make money is KDE/Qt based. From a business point of view you are taking nonsens.
And your link to the trove projects was hilarious. A quick look reveals that out of those 16 so called Gnome projects, 2 was pure KDE/Qt, one was WxPython and one had 0- that’s Zero comits total(Latest news are from may 2004).
See the problem with the Qt license is not really the license(s), but the fact that its a library and its at the core of the desktop. That’s why it won’t be included in the LSB.
If Trolltech had instead sold an IDE – or used a dual-licensing scheme so that open source developers could use it for free and proprietary vendors would have to pay then it wouldn’t be a problem. It’s an end product, not a library. You don’t need to pay anything for Microsoft’s SDKs or Apples, or any other toolkit for that matter. And that’s why KDE is at a disadvantage. If you don’t like the situation fine, but don’t act like people can’t talk about it. It’ll just become a bigger issue if “linux on the desktop” is ever to leave low single digit market penetration.
Since Linux is primarily a server-side OS, the issue hasn’t really surfaced yet, but if glibc had been dual-licensed the same way, then Linux would be mostly worthless.
And I actually like KDE. I think the technology is great and it has a bunch of cool apps like Kdevelop, but the licensing problems that have plagued its toolkit have hurt the destkop by factionalizing it. Sorry, but you should be “competing” with Microsoft and not one another if you are ever to have a chance to putting a dent in Microsoft’s desktop monopoly.
And Segedunum, if you and the other KDE fandweebs hadn’t attacked the guy from the beginning, the license issue wouldn’t have come up. In your attempt in shouting people down, you just bring more attention to the issue.
> That’s why it won’t be included in the LSB.
You will be surprised about the latest development when you hear about it…
> or used a dual-licensing scheme so that open source developers could use it for free and proprietary vendors would have to pay then it wouldn’t be a problem
Breaking news, the use a dual-license scheme allowing/enforcing exactly what you suggest.
See the problem with the Qt license is not really the license(s), but the fact that its a library and its at the core of the desktop. That’s why it won’t be included in the LSB.
Don’t recall the LSB ever coming up here. And as the LSB are totally irrelevant (Red Hat will never get involved) your little rant is meaningless. We’ve also been through that before. I suggest you find some comments on another artcile about that and reply to those in turn. That’s been waded through before.
It’s an end product, not a library. You don’t need to pay anything for Microsoft’s SDKs or Apples
My God, are you really that thick? Has nothing sank through at all? With Apple and Microsoft you still pay for Windows and you still pay for Office and you still need to pay for decent development tools like VS and you still need to pay for CALS……. Apple and Microsoft haven’t gone bankrupt like Ximian and Eazel did so they’re not giving everything away, are they?
I don’t see Microsoft or Apple magically giving their software away and allowing free software development. Am I missing something here, or is this just your bizarre little world cropping up again?
And Segedunum, if you and the other KDE fandweebs hadn’t attacked the guy from the beginning, the license issue wouldn’t have come up
Yawn.
In your attempt in shouting people down,
It was still quoted and his argument was still crap and it was still shot down in flames. Doesn’t alter anything.
you just bring more attention to the issue.
You’re the one trying to hype it as an issue without actually replying to the original arguments and comments.
Please try replying to the actual issues at hand rather than repeating the same stuff if you want to look even anywhere near credible (that’ll bee the day!).
Don’t recall the LSB ever coming up here. And as the LSB are totally irrelevant (Red Hat will never get involved) your little rant is meaningless. We’ve also been through that before. I suggest you find some comments on another artcile about that and reply to those in turn. That’s been waded through before.
So now that LSB won’t include Qt it’s meaningless. Standards are meaningless to you because you don’t like the decision. So typical of you seg.
My God, are you really that thick? Has nothing sank through at all? With Apple and Microsoft you still pay for Windows and you still pay for Office and you still need to pay for decent development tools like VS and you still need to pay for CALS……. Apple and Microsoft haven’t gone bankrupt like Ximian and Eazel did so they’re not giving everything away, are they?
How stupid can you possibly be Seg? You get windows with your computer or pay $100 and after that you don’t have to pay Microsoft a dime. You don’t have to pay for Office if you don’t want it (put down the crackpipe), and you don’t have to pay for VS. What are you so weak that you need Visual Studio to do development. I guess you’re more of a Kdevelop guy than a Vim or Emacs guy.
Let’s look at Qt. You pay the trolls $1500/per developer/per platform. Let’s say you have 3 developers for two platforms. That’s freaking $9k. All other SDKs are free. If the trolls sold an IDE and gave away the toolkit, there wouldn’t be a problem.
It was still quoted and his argument was still crap and it was still shot down in flames. Doesn’t alter anything.
You didn’t shoot anything down. You just hope that the issue will go away, which it won’t as long as Qt has a crap license.
You’re the one trying to hype it as an issue without actually replying to the original arguments and comments.
You still haven’t responded to most of my arguments.
You get windows with your computer or pay $100 and after that you don’t have to pay Microsoft a dime.
It isn’t as simple as that, is it? There’s other software to put on to Windows because Windows by itself doesn’t do very much – unlike a Linux distro.
You don’t have to pay for Office if you don’t want it (put down the crackpipe)
Oh yer. Everybody gets very, very far in the business world without being able to make Office documents and send them ;-).
and you don’t have to pay for VS.
You don’t have to pay for Qt either.
What are you so weak that you need Visual Studio to do development.
Because you get zilch of the supposed benefits of .Net without Visual Studio and everything is infinitely harder?!
You didn’t shoot anything down. You just hope that the issue will go away, which it won’t as long as Qt has a crap license.
You still haven’t gone back and addressed them. Why didn’t I shoot them down specifically?
You still haven’t responded to most of my arguments.
You haven’t got any arguments. I’ve asked you to reply to mine and now you think you can wave it away by asking me to reply to yours. You need to check yourself into a clinic son.
You go back and reply to the issues at hand, and work from there – OK? Until that happens I’ll leave you to stew in your own juice, because you’ve been comprehensively kicked to pieces, as per usual.
So now that LSB won’t include Qt it’s meaningless.
You are getting it backwards. The LSB would become meaningless, as a standard for ISVs wanting to develop for Linux desktops, if it won’t include Qt. Nothing is more meaningless than a standard that isn’t. Anyway the point is moot as the majority of the LSB people has has remembered what the LSB was supposed to be, and have stopped playing at useless politics. It’s rather clear that they are going to include Qt.
You get windows with your computer or pay $100
Exactly developing for windows is not free, so why try to argue as it is. And unlike with Qt, anyone who wants to run the applications developed for windows, they have to pay a runtime fee to Microsoft. All your arguments are only hagling on price, and rather ridiculous when you look at the facts. In any commercial, non monopoly, endeavor your price is dictated by the value the customer gets(or think they get). Since TT customer thinks they get outstanding value for money, your haggling only gets pathetic.
You are getting it backwards. The LSB would become meaningless, as a standard for ISVs wanting to develop for Linux desktops, if it won’t include Qt
That’s hilarious. Do you even realize that Qt is not the only toolkit for linux. There’s this other toolkit called gtk+. Maybe you’ve heard of it. The LSB won’t include Qt because there are strings attached. Plain and simple.
Exactly developing for windows is not free, so why try to argue as it is. And unlike with Qt, anyone who wants to run the applications developed for windows, they have to pay a runtime fee to Microsoft
You buy the operating system and you develop for the platform for free. There is no charge for the SDKs. Trolltech is the only one charging for a gui toolkit these days. Even if you add in the cost of the operating system, developing for windows is much cheaper than buying the trolls licenses. Hell, even buying VS is much cheaper then buying the trolls toolkit.
> The LSB won’t include Qt because there are strings attached. Plain and simple.
You’re misinformed like with most of your FUD. The LSB is starting to reconsider their license criteria. And guess why: because the LGPL is incompatible with standard EULAs.
“That’s hilarious. Do you even realize that Qt is not the only toolkit for linux. There’s this other toolkit called gtk+. Maybe you’ve heard of it. The LSB won’t include Qt because there are strings attached. Plain and simple.”
Calling the GPL, the licence at the very heart of linux and gnu software, “a string” and attempting to cast a negative light on that is borderline trolling. And IMHO it actually serves to make the LSB less relevant, and is an asthma to the free software movement. Here is ‘the page’ with the info on the ‘LSB / QT issue’: http://www.linuxbase.org/futures/ideas/issues/libqt/ . And yes, ‘the issue’ is that it is a library that is GPLed.
It makes the LSB less relevant when you don’t include the toolkit that forms the basis of the software that runs on 1/2 of free desktops as their primary desktop environment. (The same goes for Fd.o…) I’m not a paranoid nut- I don’t think that these orgs are actively hostile to KDE for the most part. It’s just that there is a very real, occasionally justified, BUT INCREASINGLY justified notion that these are GNOME playgrounds… Posts like yours don’t help.
This GPL as “a string” argument actually harms the free software movement. By saying, ‘We don’t do GPLed libraries’, the LSB is basically saying to individuals / companies that you shouldn’t make GPLed libs because other people can’t use them in an attempt to make a buck. OK, that’s fine- BUT:
1) Why the hell should a company give away a product for free so another company can make a profit selling closed software with it?
2) Why the hell should an independent developer make a library in their free time so other people can make money from it?
In both cases it’s fine if people want to do that, but you can’t blame them if they don’t… and there are many people that see no incentive in encouraging the development of non-GPLed software. Go ahead, scream, “ZEALOT”. Feel Better? Good.
Here’s why only the zealots matter: All closed non-free software development is caged by a need to maximize profit and to find the sweet spot when it comes faster, better, cheaper. They don’t care about free software, they only care about a free lunch. These firms will be the first to move along when they find something that fits their needs better, or when they receive incentives that they can’t refuse. The only value in closed developers is in the code the community can extract from them when they are developing on ‘free’ platforms.
At the end of the day the ‘zealots’ will still be here. If the ‘zealots’ are the ones that actually care about free software, then sign me up. I’m a ‘zealot’, and I don’t give a rat’s arse about any firm’s ‘need’ to extract profit from the community for free…
There’s this other toolkit called gtk+. The LSB won’t include Qt because there are strings attached.
Still not getting it I see. Funny thing the way you argue when the one with a strings attached license are the LGPL, while Qt have one which has none.
You buy the operating systemeveloping for windows is much cheaper than buying the trolls licenses. Hell, even buying VS is much cheaper then buying the trolls toolkit.
And you are still only haggling the price, in a way that show you have no clue of how commercial endeavors work. But as usuall you ignore the parts that don’t fit in your fantasy world view. You keep on arguing from the commercial bedroom programmer point, and try to camouflage it as a licensing issue. Meanwhile in the real world ISVs have no problems buying from TrollTech as they get very good ROI.
Hello people,
This Lumbergh guy (aka youknowmewell) is really stirring up shit all the time and turn a KDE related thread into a GNOME vs. KDE war.
If you have a registered account then please use your modpoints to mod this guy’s comments down and repeat so after 24hrs. If we do this often enough we gonna signal the administration of OSN about his permanent and regular abuses and violations and we might end up (hope) to get rid of him permanently.
You might want to ban Tim Butler too, since this whole thing started with him. Oh right. Kind of hard to get contributors unless they pass the “Yes!” test.
Why don’t you all simply let people vote free of coercion.
“Post Comment” should be replaced with two links: “Post Comment on This Story”, and “Contribute to the KDE/Gnome Flame War”. Then, those of us who are interested in the 20 posts on the story can avoid looking at the 164 posts that are just flames, and are very similar to the flames that were posted in the previous 100 KDE or Gnome stories.