“I invite everyone interested to join the Utnubu Team. Utnubu stands for
doing what Ubuntu does, just the other way around: We want to take the
things Ubuntu does and that are missing in Debian, and – where
appliciable – put them in Debian.”
“I invite everyone interested to join the Utnubu Team. Utnubu stands for
doing what Ubuntu does, just the other way around: We want to take the
things Ubuntu does and that are missing in Debian, and – where
appliciable – put them in Debian.”
Meanwhile, I invite everyone interested to join Naibed team. Naibed is just like Debian except it loves Utnubu.
i think all the debian based distros should collaborate in software development and package updates, its only fair,if it was not for debian they would not have the base to build on…
I mean I’m not against Ubuntu in any imaginable way. I like what they do but, you know, I like the pie with a different taste. Anyway
that means in plain “human” that I like Debian for what it is, and I really wouldn’t want to see it become too much “ubuntized”. If you want Ubuntu, go with it.
I’m obviously not the man to ask for Debian’s future
but if it had to go someplace, I’d very much like to see it go in the Progeny direction instead of Ubuntu’s.
Actually, Mark Shuttleworth gave a presentation at Debconf about it. Here it is:
http://linux.blogweb.de/uploads/02-Ubuntu_Talk-Mark_Shuttleworth.mp…
Apparently, SID and Ubuntu universe were compatible at the time of the Hoary release, but not long after Hoary, an issue resulted in SID being made incompatible. Such backwards incompatible changes happen from time to time in SID (i.e. it’s named after the kid in Toy Story that regularly broke the toys), so it wasn’t a big deal for SID to break compatibility.
It was however a big deal for Hoary, since it was supposed to be a production release. As a result of this difference in constraints, Hoary diverged a bit from SID, but the difference will disappear again once Breezy is released. However, it may re-emerge until the following Ubuntu release if SID makes another incompatible change.
Relating to Ubuntu versus Progeny, they both have different focii. Progeny is more interested in using Debian stable, whereas Ubuntu is more interested in bringing experimental features like X.org to Debian (This is a bit too bleeding edge for Progeny). Note that the bulk of the X.org to SID work was actually done by Ubuntu programmers. Utnubu is simply an extension of this so that SID users can get all the extra Ubuntu ports faster than they would have otherwise. IMO, that’s a good thing for Debian, and ultimately Progeny.
Finally, about the GNOME versus KDE thing, Apparently Qt doesn’t meet the LSB criteria for inclusion (see License):
http://www.linuxbase.org/futures/criteria/index.html
It says “This is interpreted to mean that at least one implementation is available under a license that meets the Open Source Definition but is does not prohibit propriatry usage. The rationale for this criteria is very similar to that of the LGPL.”
So basically GPLed and Qt-licensed Qt meet the OSD, but you can’t develop propriatry software with them. The commercial version of Qt allows propriatry usage, but doesn’t meet the OSD.
As a devoted Untubu user, I have to say huzzah for finally integrating Debian and Unubut. The Utubunu project is taking shape and before too long, Ubunut will be the desktop of choice, even if it does take my Powerbook 3 hours to boot the Hoary liveCD.
Long live Utubun!
Just some more information, to read about the libc breakage issue and the argument between Matt Zimmerman and Ian Murdock that ensued on debian-devel, check out this link:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/06/msg01720.html
I tend to side with Zimmerman on this issue, this posting in particular being the major explanation worth reading:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/06/msg01785.html
And after seeing the above-mentioned Mark Shuttleworth talk, I’m convinced Ubuntu is _good_ for Debian, and will continue to be. I also consider Ubuntu to be a literal _gift_ from Mr. Shuttleworth: he’s invested much money and effort into a project that promises no rewards, and he’s doing it for the benefit of a Free Software desktop.
I am normally all for new Linux distros as I love to tinker and play around. I also hate all the jerk offs who like to bag on things people do, asking, “Why would you write a webserver for a Gameboy?” and trying to make someone’s hobby work sound pointless and stupid.
But really…. why would you take Ubuntu, based on Debian, and then make Debian into Ubuntu? I am not trying to be a troll, seriously. I am just hoping someone can point out to me what I am missing.
why would you take Ubuntu, based on Debian, and then make Debian into Ubuntu?
They don’t want to make Debian into Ubuntu – they just want to selectively take nice things that went into Ubunto, and also apply them to Debian. Obviously a good thing, if you ask me.
But really…. why would you take Ubuntu, based on Debian, and then make Debian into Ubuntu?
It’s healthy to have this kind of relationship. Debian provides a solid foundation, and Ubuntu makes little tweaks and modifications, giving it a slightly different spin. The guys over at Debian decide they like a few of them, and integrate them into Debian. Debian is now better off for having Ubuntu around, and Ubuntu feeds off the success of Debian.
“Debian is now better off for having Ubuntu around, and Ubuntu feeds off the success of Debian.”
Actually it will be Debian that feeds off the success of Ubuntu. Debian will continue to be a hackers and purists distro whilst Ubuntu will absorb the mainstream users en masse. Eventually there’ll be more packages going from Ubuntu to Debian than the other way around! Ubuntu will be like a testing playground for the Debian of the future since it’s standards are as rigorous.
What you are missing: all this is about is formalizing the process for reconciling some the differences which cropped up between pakages in Ubuntu’s universe repository and Debian’s unstable repository. It’s nice to see this happening, but it shouldn’t be a shock to anyone, as it is keeping with what Ubuntu has been aiming at all along.
why would you take Ubuntu, based on Debian, and then make Debian into Ubuntu?
i agree with thryllkill. it seems that Utnubu will necessarily lag behind both Debian and Ubuntu.
it seems that Utnubu will necessarily lag behind both Debian and Ubuntu
Utnubu is not a distribution, it’s a name for the effort Debian people make to `port back’ useful changes in Ubunto to Debian, where applicable.
This is a good thing and not at all surprising, as many have pointed out in this thread.
Remember, Ubuntu isn’t a fork taking Debian as it’s core and then moving away. It’s meant to be an ongoing thing, and keeping the two as close as possible allows them to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort.
That means we see things like a guy who maintains a package in Ubuntu and Kubuntu trying to get it into the Debian base so he can maintain it there instead. If it’s a package that belongs in the base, then that’s obviously the right thing to do.
I tried to install Ubuntu on my Toshiba Satellite Pro 6100, but the installation freezed immediately. Debian, on the other hand, managed to make the install frightingly simple without _any_, I repeat, _any_ problems. I suggest Ubuntu is using too high a gear and should focus more on Debian, not the other way around.
Cheerio.
The problem I had with (k)ubuntu is the default color depth. It is set to 24 bits. My video card is old and not capable of handling that depth. I had installed it on the same drive as Xandros, so I booted into
Xandros and changed the Xorg.conf file and then (k)ubuntu comes up working.
How comes the Linux Standard Base Project has declared GNOME as Standard Desktop for Linux ?
http://www.linuxbase.org/LSBWiki/DesktopWG
Simple, is has “no strings atached” for commecrial use. not like KDE with Qt.
>Simple, is has “no strings atached” for commecrial use. not like KDE with Qt.
I love this Gnome is more friendly to closed source development. Isn’t that what we should be avoiding???? KDE uses Qt with is GPL. Pure freedom there, not the LGPL which allows closed source apps to pollute our system. It is a sad day that the Gnome people boast that being able to make closed source apps is a benefit.
Pure freedom there, not the LGPL which allows closed source apps to pollute our system. It is a sad day that the Gnome people boast that being able to make closed source apps is a benefit.
Definitions made up by the FSF/Stallman are irrelevant in the real world. In fact OSDL is talking about more proprietary apps running on linux
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39208632,00.htm
Sorry, but the FSF/Stallman doesn’t speak for open source. Two different things.
The only thing doing the polluting is closed-minded zealots like you spewing garbage on your posts.
Actually, the LSB is about having free software base, so the FSF/Stallman are very relevant. Without a free software base:
* most distributions wouldn’t be LSB compliant
* vendors like Red Hat couldn’t guarantee suppport for proprietary parts of the LSB
* propriatry parts of the LSB couldn’t be ported to all CPU architectures
* it should be impossible to write an OpenSolaris or other OS port of the LSB without including a Linux kernel emulator.
However, from what I remember, the key purpose of the LSB is precisely so that you *can* run propriatry apps like Oracle on *any* LSB-compliant distro, whether or not propriatry vendors certified your LSB-compliant distro. If you’re writing free software, then the LSB isn’t really necessary since automake gives you the ability to recompile your app for any distribution or OS. Chances are, Qt will be included in most distributions anyway, so free software KDE apps wouldn’t be affected by anything the LSB does.
Actually, the LSB is about having free software base, so the FSF/Stallman are very relevant.
Nope, that is not what the LSB is about. This is what the LSB is about.
From http://freestandards.org/pipermail/lsb-futures/2005-March/001489.ht…
“The LSB license criteria currently states,
The component should have at least one compliant implementation
available under an Open Source license that also promotes a “No
Strings Attached” environment for developers. This means that the
developer would be able to develop and deploy their software however
they choose using at least one standard implementation. This is
interpreted to mean that at least one implementation is available
under a license that meets the Open Source Definition but it does not
prohibit propriatry usage. The rationale for this criteria is very
similar to that of the LGPL.”
Actually Qt fullfills the licence criteria as it is available under an open source licence and does not prohibit proprietary usage.
The “problem” comes from the shift of goals inside the LSB.
While it has been a goal to define a standard set of libraries software vendors could rely on when installing their software, they now aim at providing an as-cheap-as-possible development environment.
But there is still the possibility that thee LSB’s goals will get back to making software deployment easy.
Only time will tell
Actually Qt fullfills the licence criteria as it is available under an open source licence and does not prohibit proprietary usage.
As http://www.linuxbase.org/futures/ideas/issues/libqt/ explains, LSB considers charging a license fee for commercial use `prohibitive’. All things considered, I think that’s pretty reasonable.
LSB considers charging a license fee for commercial use `prohibitive’.
Yes, as their new goals are to create a development platform that is as cheap as possible this new interpretation is very handy.
Maybe it is necessary to lure some early adopters into the new market by putting on the “all-gratis” labels.
You beat me to the punch with that link. The bottom line is that Qt has “strings attached” and as that page points out, until Trolltech changes its license or another implementation of the API with a more liberal license is created Qt will not be part of the standard.
And that coincides with what an OSDL spokesman spoke about in this article http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39208632,00.htm
The bottom line is that the FSF camp and the Open Source camps are two very different groups.
http://linux.omnipotent.net/article.php?article_id=12503
Lumbergh,
Go fuck yourself.
Quoting the page you linked to:
Step 2: Analyze each library using LSB criteria (http://www.linuxbase.org/futures/criteria/index.html). Certain candidates like openssl, libqt are dropped
Note that all that is work in progress, not at all the final word on the matter.
Sorry to be replying to my own post, but this is relevant: the LSB explanation of why libQT doesn’t meet the criteria: http://www.linuxbase.org/futures/ideas/issues/libqt/
(of course this is all off-topic, but nonetheless interesting)
Don’t you all think the nomenclature is really going weird now???? Ubuntu sounded cool but Mandriva, Vista and now Utnubu sound really weird !
It’s official, gtk+ is the standard toolkit. I was wondering when the LSB was going to have something like LDSB (Linux Desktop Standards Base)
Actually, it looks like they include Gnome libraries in that too. So Gnome is now the official desktop.
For years people have drawn on debians base (for what ever reason you can think of), Now its debian’s turn to draw of its own sibbling ditros…
my my the tides have turned.
For years people have drawn on debians base (for what ever reason you can think of), Now its debian’s turn to draw of its own sibbling ditros…
my my the tides have turned
Yes, true, but I don’t tend to refer to it as funny, I refer to it as Open Source myself.
What with Debian finally picking up Xorg from Ubuntu.
This is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard.
I’m running the GNU/Linux Ubuntu distro on a 2nd computer with an eye towards making GNU/Linux my main computing platform somewhere down the road. Whether the distro is Ubuntu or something else remains to be seen.
One concern I have about Ubuntu is that I’ve seen in many places warnings against using Debian packages with Ubuntu. I’m not sure what the problem is. Perhaps this Utnubu project will help allieviate the problem. Other than that, Ubuntu has been great. I haven’t seen any productivity software I can’t get for it. Office applications, home finances, desktop publishing, website publishing, you name it, it’s all there.
Finally, about the GNOME versus KDE thing, Apparently Qt doesn’t meet the LSB criteria for inclusion (see License):
http://www.linuxbase.org/futures/criteria/index.html
It says “This is interpreted to mean that at least one implementation is available under a license that meets the Open Source Definition but is does not prohibit propriatry usage. The rationale for this criteria is very similar to that of the LGPL.”
So basically GPLed and Qt-licensed Qt meet the OSD, but you can’t develop propriatry software with them. The commercial version of Qt allows propriatry usage, but doesn’t meet the OSD.
What kernel does the Linux Standard Base use? Since Linux is GPL, I guess they will use a BSD kernel then?
What kernel does the Linux Standard Base use? Since Linux is GPL, I guess they will use a BSD kernel then?
Yes, because when people write software for an OS they link against the kernel. This is why programs like Real Player, Opera, Oracle and StarOffice are all GPL’d.
….err….wait a second…
The kernel uses a modified GPL + explicitly excludes userspace apps from being classed as a “derrived work”.
What kernel does the Linux Standard Base use? Since Linux is GPL, I guess they will use a BSD kernel then?
I think the LSB just doesn’t say anything about kernels.
So technically, you could create an LSB-compliant linux distribution without providing the linux kernel. I wish you good luck getting that to work though
.
Well you should be able to write an LSB compliant, OpenSolaris, HURD, AIX, or FreeBSD port, and at least a few years back, was some interest in these ports (remember project Monterey?). I’m not sure if any non-Linux LSB ports were made though.
That being said, it is possible to write propriatry apps for Linux since the apps don’t like to Linux directly, they link through libc which is LGPLed. Libc doesn’t directly link in the kernel — it just makes system calls, which isn’t covered by the GPL (in a similar way that web services and HTTP requests aren’t covered by the GPL).
I haven’t used Debian for a while now, but the improvements that can be brought about by this project just might be the thing to make me want to try it again.
Yes, because when people write software for an OS they link against the kernel. This is why programs like Real Player, Opera, Oracle and StarOffice are all GPL’d.
Yep, you are right. Of course application developers don’t want GPL’ed libraries, but kernel module developers like NVidia or ATI don’t care, that is why we have all these nice open source graphic drivers. Oh wait…
given the shoddy state of Debian Unusable err unstable porting Ubuntu packages might not be a bad idea, at least they have their act together and hoary is *USEABLE* .
Amusing the total lack of coverage about the Debian Uneable gcc 4.0 migration and how it borks everything from installing packages like gaim to running programs like kopete and saving files from web browsers.
The migration to 4.0 and x.org is needed, but the cost is just way too high. I’m tempted myself to just switch to Ubuntu at this point and leave the egos known as Debian developers to have solitude party with their attitude of “don;t expect unstable to work”
It’ll be interesting to see if any negative press here is reported with the recent debian changes. horrah linux takes a giant step back into the stone age
given the shoddy state of Debian Unusable err unstable porting Ubuntu packages might not be a bad idea
Debian unstable was meant to be unstable. With the recent release of the new stable, major upgrades and breakage in unstable was announced. And that’s exactly what happened.
If you want a solid well-working system, get Debian Stable. If you want bleeding edge versions of everything, look somewhere else. If you want to develop on the next stable version of Debian, use unstable. But don’t expect it to work.
As has already been said Debian unstable is meant to be unstable.
There are three debian distros
Unstable (Sid):
This is almost always broken in some way, as it always has the latest and greatest. Hence the name. It’s used to shake out bugs.
Testing (Etch):
This is where packages which have been more or less stablised go. It’s suitable for end-users on non-critical systems. It’s the basis of the next Debian release.
Stable (Sarge):
This is the stable, officially released distribution, suitable for use on critical systems.
The problem is that Ubuntu tracks the unstable branch, which is in a permanent state of flux. Thus, their patches aren’t particularly useful as they apply to software that’s rapidly changing, and is not in a stable state to begin with.
If they tracked Testing (which does stay current, albeit a month or two behind app releases) it would be far easier for the two communities to collaborate.
Amusing the total lack of coverage about the Debian Uneable gcc 4.0 migration and how it borks everything from installing packages like gaim to running programs like kopete and saving files from web browsers.
That’s because it isn’t news. It’s common knowledge that unstable is unstable, by design. This has always been the case. There was plenty of forewarning about the breakage on debian-devel (which, if you’re running unstable, you should keep an eye on), and it was totally avoidable if you just held back on a worldwide package update until the dust had settled.
I like the sentiment here, but I think this whole issue has highlighted a problem with our free software ecosystem. There shouldn’t be an ubuntu backwards project specially created to backport ubuntu enhancements to debian. It should be inherent to all GPL software development that enhancements should be contributed back to the originating commons. Today this is scoped to the source code itself, but it should also apply to packaging and package repositories where appropriate.
In short, it should work like this: if you base your distribution on some other distribution’s package sets, then any packaging changes must be contributed back to the parent distribution. It would be ubuntu’s responsibility to make these enhancements available to the debian project.
Now, any new packages that did not exist in the parent (for example ubuntu-artwork), would not require this, and neither would any value-added packages for commercial debian derivatives.
A proposal for GPL3? What do you think?
“….changes must be contributed back to the parent distribution….. ”
it does work like this… sort of….
nothing stops debian from taking the changes ubuntu has made therefor I would say that it they are contributed back, not only to the parent but anyone else….
In short, it should work like this: if you base your distribution on some other distribution’s package sets, then any packaging changes must be contributed back to the parent distribution. It would be ubuntu’s responsibility to make these enhancements available to the debian project.
A proposal for GPL3? What do you think?
No, it’ll never happen.
I love this Gnome is more friendly to closed source development. Isn’t that what we should be avoiding???? KDE uses Qt with is GPL. Pure freedom there, not the LGPL which allows closed source apps to pollute our system. It is a sad day that the Gnome people boast that being able to make closed source apps is a benefit.
And I love that “Qt GPL will save the world” idelogy, there’s 2 worlds, 1.- the GPL world where Qt is doing nicely and have support from people who like to write GPL software and 2.- The world where people don’t like GPL because the need closed source code for the applications a world where they don’t like tom pay for expensive locences when there are cheaper options, poeple called “The evil commercial world”.
Please, stay in world number 1 and never get out of there.
And I love that “Qt GPL will save the world” idelogy, there’s 2 worlds, 1.- the GPL world where Qt is doing nicely and have support from people who like to write GPL software and 2.- The world where people don’t like GPL because the need closed source code for the applications a world where they don’t like tom pay for expensive locences when there are cheaper options, poeple called “The evil commercial world”.
The only thing I see is hypocrisy of the GNOME camp. GNOME was started because Qt orginally wasn’t free software, and the early GNOME contributers were mostly GNU Hippies. Now that Qt is totally Free under the GPL, all the GNOME people talk about how GNOME is still better as it allows commercial closed source apps. This is total hyprocrisy that has crept into the GNOME camp over the last few years since all the corporate dollars have flowed into it.
This is total hyprocrisy that has crept into the GNOME camp over the last few years
You’re saying GNOME was originally GPL, not LGPL? I can’t find any reference to that… care to give a pointer?
The only thing I see is hypocrisy of the GNOME camp. GNOME was started because Qt orginally wasn’t free software, and the early GNOME contributers were mostly GNU Hippies. Now that Qt is totally Free under the GPL, all the GNOME people talk about how GNOME is still better as it allows commercial closed source apps. This is total hyprocrisy that has crept into the GNOME camp over the last few years since all the corporate dollars have flowed into it.
That’s your point of view, mine says:
GO GNOME!!
the problem is, well yes GNOME must be standard…
they have invented everything to favor GNOME
but now remains only imposition.
however don’t worry,we’ll save the world buying mac
Speaking of bringing ISVs to Linux/Gnome, the Gnomers have started writing up documenation on interface stability, proper intergration with the Gnome desktop, and a guide for ISVs. Its actually a really good read!
http://live.gnome.org/InterfaceSpecification
http://live.gnome.org/GuideForISVs
Few people really need the up to date back porting of security fixes that stable [occasionally archaic] gets and they should use testing as few people really need the latest stuff in sid. Testing is the automatic weekly promotion of everything that passes automated testing iff [ if and only if ] ALL their dependencies also pass. Developers live in sid and don’t bother passing into Testing because they wanna do the fun stuff. Thus few use the branch most should use by design because they rightly fear security issues. Honestly, most things in Testing should only delay ~ 2 weeks but it does not turn out that way. Ideally things would rarely take an extra week to get into testing and the security + freshness issues become moot.
Actually Qt fullfills the licence criteria as it is available under an open source licence and does not prohibit proprietary usage.
They don’t prohibit, they charge you for it, tha’s the kind of attachment LSB is trying to avoid.
If you look at the page that whoever it was linked, the one that started this, you see that actually it’s just the gtk libraries being considered, and not the whole of gnome.
This implies that it’s forcing xfce just as much as it’s forcing GNOME.
More realistically, this does make sense, as the GNOME project are working towards removing the distinction between a “gnome app” and a “gtk app.” This is something that is very useful to developers who want to create a non-desktop-specific app, (i.e. a standardised one,) and is something that KDE will always have more of a problem with.
That sound stupid.
and you linux people complain about Vista? blah
Fact #1 : Qt is available under the GPL. Even under windows, since one month. There is no restriction added to the GPL. That’s THE GPL, unmodified.
Fact #2 : Qt is also available under a commercial license. That’s called dual-licensing.
Fact #3 : Therefore, everyone can just ignore the very existence of the commercial license. If you don’t like it, don’t use it, and consider Qt a GPL project. Just like any other GPL project. Thus, there is NO problem about Qt. None.
Fact #4 : GNOME has been launched in another era, the late 90’s, when Qt-x11 and KDE were not GPL’d.
Hope that helps….
You didn’t clarify anything for anybody. Everybody is already aware of the issues. Read the links provided in above posts to see why Qt won’t be in the LSB desktop standard.
Bottom line is that Qt requires you to buy a license for proprietary development and the LSB has decided that they don’t want to be exclusionary and want a low barrier for all development.
Bottom line is that Qt requires you to buy a license for proprietary development and the LSB has decided that they don’t want to be exclusionary and want a low barrier for all development.
This is simply not true. You don’t need to buy a licence for proprietary development with Qt. Qt is under the plain GPL. You can release your own propretary code under the GPL licence and charge what you like for it. All you can’t do is keep your source code hidden. Something the Linux community is supposed to frown upon.
You don’t need to buy a licence for proprietary development with Qt.
You confused proprietary with commercial.
Something the Linux community is supposed to frown upon.
Once again you people are going to have to wake up and smell the coffee regarding the “linux community”.
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39208632,00.htm. That is from a guy at OSDL.
The Open Source camp don’t take direction from the FSF/Stallman
http://linux.omnipotent.net/article.php?article_id=12503
It’s really amazing that people think there is some all ecompassing groupthink in the “linux community”.
You FSF people need to go play in the corner by yourselves because more and more the open source people are ignoring you.
You seem to be referring to the old QPL.
At least with Qt 4, the license is THE GPL, this is stated on trolltech’s site :
“… is also available under the open source General Public License (GPL) for open source development projects”
http://www.trolltech.com/newsroom/announcements/00000209.html
Bottom line : even if Trolltech goes evil tomorrow, we’ll be able to fork, like with any GPL project, like we did fork XFree86. Because Qt4’s license is the GPL.
I think the LSB will reconsider its stance, because since the release of Qt4 under the GPL, there’s no reason anymore to be worried.
And to Lumbergh : I hope this time I _did_ clarify things.
think the LSB will reconsider its stance, because since the release of Qt4 under the GPL, there’s no reason anymore to be worried.
LSB is quite well-aware of the fact that libQt is available under the GPL. Read http://www.linuxbase.org/futures/ideas/issues/libqt/ for details.
Fact #1 : Qt is available under the GPL. Even under windows, since one month. There is no restriction added to the GPL. That’s THE GPL, unmodified.
This is a tricky one , there’s a restriction in the compiler, it is GPL only if you use it with GCC, that makes it prohibitive.
Fact #2 : Qt is also available under a commercial license. That’s called dual-licensing.
The commercial license issue is covered in the faq.
Fact #3 : Therefore, everyone can just ignore the very existence of the commercial license. If you don’t like it, don’t use it, and consider Qt a GPL project. Just like any other GPL project. Thus, there is NO problem about Qt. None.
There is a problem, the license restriction for comercial applications, LBS is intented to bring commercial applications to linux, not GPL.
Fact #4 : GNOME has been launched in another era, the late 90’s, when Qt-x11 and KDE were not GPL’d.
I don’t see the relevance of this.
This is a tricky one , there’s a restriction in the compiler, it is GPL only if you use it with GCC, that makes it prohibitive.
Its the GPL, it doesn’t allow restrictions depending on compiler.
You can always compiler with other compilers, but you might have to write your makefiles yourself or use a different makefile generator than qmake.
Another goddamn variant of ubuntu.
Are you penguins ever gonna learn? Divide and conquer is not going to solve anything, other than breaking cross-compatibility.
You guys need a cohesive, consolidated solution. Not this linux + ‘some incomprehensible reason to create another variant to suit some nerd’s need’.
Create one solution that can be tailored to suit _anyone’s_ needs.
Combine the best of KDE and GNome and start moving on the road to a decent solution.
You guys are the reason I don’t use Linux – too much indirection.
Create one solution that can be tailored to suit _anyone’s_ needs.
A jack of all trades does not excel at any one thing…
“You guys are the reason I don’t use Linux – too much indirection.”
You are the reason Windows is so popular – too stupid. RTFA dumbass.
“Create one solution that can be tailored to suit _anyone’s_ needs.”
there is one solution for anyones needs, just my solution (xfree/icewm/2.4kernel) isnt the solution for joe(Xorg/gnome/2.6)…..
OHHHH you mean one size fits all, SORRY that is one reason I left windows to begin with and no I dont want to go back to that! Please feel free to stick with them if you think the “one size fits all” method is the best but I got tired of my OS that just didnt quite fit….
use to be a lemming, now i am a penguin!
This is simply not true. You don’t need to buy a licence for proprietary development with Qt. Qt is under the plain GPL. You can release your own propretary code under the GPL licence and charge what you like for it. All you can’t do is keep your source code hidden. Something the Linux community is supposed to frown upon.
As long you don’t link of any your libraries to Qt ones, (something pretty much impossible and not viable)
The problem is not in the “charge for your GPL code”, what if you don’t want make it GPL? then you are screwed.
That’s the Qt problem.
what the hell does LSB vs QT vs GNOME have to do with this project of backporting ubuntu changes to debian?
Buggered if I know…
By excluding Qt, fewer GUI-libraries will be available for developers to choose between. Because of Qt’s popularity, this will make “Linux” harder to develop for, seeing as a lot of developers prefer Qt. I think a minimum amount of choice should be availible to support developers who may not like GTK (this goes for any other significant library too).
LSB argues that if we allow dual-licensed libraries, we might end up with chains of libraries that tax proprietary developers for a totalt sum that will be unpleasantly expensive. To prevent this, I suggest that the license-rule is adjusted to simply require an alternative closed-source-friendly library (eg. GTK) to be installed alongside the dual-licensed one.
LSB argues that if we allow dual-licensed libraries, we might end up with chains of libraries that tax proprietary developers for a totalt sum that will be unpleasantly expensive. To prevent this, I suggest that the license-rule is adjusted to simply require an alternative closed-source-friendly library (eg. GTK) to be installed alongside the dual-licensed one.
Oh yeah, like they’re going to double on libraries that do the same thing just so Trolltech can get the exception.
Oh yeah, like they’re going to double on libraries that do the same thing just so Trolltech can get the exception.
Yeah, that’s the important part. Providing diversity comes second.
LSB argues that if we allow dual-licensed libraries, we might end up with chains of libraries that tax proprietary developers for a totalt sum that will be unpleasantly expensive. To prevent this, I suggest that the license-rule is adjusted to simply require an alternative closed-source-friendly library (eg. GTK) to be installed alongside the dual-licensed one.
(I think you understand, but people might misread this)
If something is not in LSB, that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be included in LSB-compliant distro’s.
It just means a distro is not required to provide libQt in order to be able to call itself LSB-compliant.
http://www.linuxbase.org/futures/ideas/issues/libqt/
It just means a distro is not required to provide libQt in order to be able to call itself LSB-compliant.
Exactly.
Which implies that ISVs that use Qt will not bother to think about LSB, which is a pity.
The original purpose of a guaranteed installed base would have been better.
The LSB’s shift in goals will almost likely guarantee that there will be no cross-distribution base ISVs can support
debian picked up xorg from ubuntu? what are you’ll smoking…. Debian had plans for Xorg for a long while, in fact the plan was a very modular Xorg…. if ubuntu had it and debian borrowed it then it was only to simplify things…not because debianwasnt going to xorg on its own or anything…. did debian borrow xorg from ubuntu? i highly doubt it…. but i guess it is possible but still i doubt it…
Yup but when I launched my daily upgrade to sid it installed xorg, let it to be the default and I was not able to start X and so gnome anymore.
I tried to reconfigure xorg.conf with their tools but it didn’t work.
I’m sure it’s a problem of mine but I lost 4 hours and now I’m still using xfree.
That said I’m not sure I understood that project right, but a new debian based distro should focus on these aspects:
1) some packages such as acroread and java are not easy to install, you have to use external repos.
I understand the licensing reason of Debian, but a new Debian derived should expand it, right ?
With ubuntu you can install java by doing:
apt-get install java-whatever
2) KDE 3.4 was released on March, and KDE 3.4.1 was relased on May. Well sid has still 3.3.*. on Debian.
I read at their malining lists it’s due to xorg, gcc4, blah blah but from and end-user point of view kde3.4 was out 4 months ago and I cannot use it yet.
Yup this a Debian related issue, though.
“kde3.4 was out 4 months ago and I cannot use it yet. ”
OH my gosh… Call the president…. How horrible!!!
If you want to run the latest then just face up tot he fact that either debian isnt for you or you are going to be dealing with a lot of breakage…
” reconfigure xorg.conf”
did you try a copy of your xfree file?
“my daily upgrade to sid”
well you did a simulate first to see what was going to happen right? certainly nobody is running sid and does wily-nily upgrades…
uh, hello you are running SID right after a new stable release….. After a new stable release you should not run SID for a good while, track testing for a while after a stable release(i usually wait 6 months)and then go back to sid….
Of course, SID is “meant” to be broken so your pain is all self inflicted…
What does LSB matter?
KDE is more alive than ever, is attracting attention from new developers at a nice rate, it has the superior development framework (so apps will keep coming) and it has the majority of users.
So I say let the GTK/Gnome zealots spread their stupid FUD while KDE people keep eating their lunch with their hard work and their killer desktop
…when I launched my daily upgrade to sid…
I’m sure it’s a problem of mine but I lost 4 hours…
Yes, the problem is you’re using sid. don’t!
You can always compiler with other compilers, but you might have to write your makefiles yourself or use a different makefile generator than qmake.
Im talking about the Windows version, integration of Qt in Visual Studio or Borland C++ Bulder is only available if you buy a licence from TrollTech.
Im talking about the Windows version
I am talking about the Windows version as well.
There is no part of the code that prohibits compiling with otherwise supported compilers.
Only the makefile generator qmake as delivered in the free download isn’t supporting them.
But qmake is only one possible makefile generate, there are lots of others around as well and I guess Visual Studio and C++ Builder can handle build dependencies themselves as well.
And in case there are developers who want to use the free version with those tools and those tools aren’t capable in handling the build, then it will take very likely only a short time until someone adds the extensions for qmake of the free version.
Thx for the information, I didn’t know that.
So I say let the GTK/Gnome zealots spread their stupid FUD while KDE people keep eating their lunch with their hard work and their killer desktop
And who is talking about KDE? the disscution is about Qt, would you mind to at least read before make your unaccurate comments?
and KDE depends on QT, as everybody knows. It’s not that hard to understand.
Yeah, that’s the important part. Providing diversity comes second
Are you people really reading? Qt free version forces you to use GPL, and commerical applications shouln’d be forced to do so, got that?
Free version of Qt is useless for commercial applications, stop saying “The GPL version of Qt” No, no GPL, no license atachments, nothing. OK? can you read now?
and KDE depends on QT, as everybody knows. It’s not that hard to understand.
So?
KDE uses GPL version of Qt because they are willing to, they are not atached to commercial license and commercial license of Qt if what is in disscution, so, no, has nothing to do with KDE, cut the paranoia and get the facts.
I guess no one’s really sure what Debian is about these days. Maybe they were sure once, all that romance about 100 per cent bullet-proof, security second to none in the industry, no encumbrances, etc.
These days if you want a secure and reliable server, well quite a few other distros will likely do you just fine. Some even offer optional upgrades and not just security fixes. And if you want an up-to-date, user-friendly desktop, well Debian is about the last distro you’d choose. They barely make a nod in the direction of a desktop for the masses.
So, as Ubuntu has rather cruelly demonstrated, where does this leave Debian? All snorting and hot under the collar, and none too keen on taking the medicine in the form of Ubuntu’s optmizations,from the sound of it. Or perhaps that’s an inappropriate image, as the emperor seems to be in a bit of a vestment-challenged situation these days.
where does this leave Debian? (snip) none too keen on taking the medicine in the form of Ubuntu’s optmizations,from the sound of it.
Err, the original article was about the coordinated effort in Debian to adopt the good stuff from Ubuntu where applicable…
You keep on missing the point. LSB is aware of Qt’s licesning…duh. The problem is that the Qt license is GPL.
Once again read the links.
If, as you imply, the LSB does dislike licensing libqt under the GPL, then they are against the stance of the FSF. The FSF has long been recommending using the GPL instead of the LGPL for libraries, and has decided that the first L in LGPL is for “Lesser”, not for “Library”.
If, as you imply, the LSB does dislike licensing libqt under the GPL, then they are against the stance of the FSF. The FSF has long been recommending using the GPL instead of the LGPL for libraries, and has decided that the first L in LGPL is for “Lesser”, not for “Library”.
The FSF has nothing to do with the LSB. And the OSDL (where Linus works) is encouraging more proprietary apps.
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39208632,00.htm
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the FSF only speaks for the FSF and nobody else, no matter how much you think they should control “linux community groupthink”
“Some even offer optional upgrades and not just security fixes.”
Any Debian developer can upload backports to http://www.backports.org/. It’s hard to make a more detailed comparison of offerings, because you haven’t specified which other distributions you’re referring to.
“And if you want an up-to-date, user-friendly desktop, well Debian is about the last distro you’d choose.”
For users knowledgeable enough to avoid or deal with the breakage, Unstable is a great choice. Testing will be soon be a viable option for everybody else, as one of the largest blocking points (lack of security updates) has been resolved; the new Testing security team (http://secure-testing.alioth.debian.org) is coming along nicely.
Debian wins out as far as up-to-date-edness is concerned; aside from short periods immediately following an Ubuntu release (and rare library or toolchain transitions) Testing tends to contain packages fresher than those available in Ubuntu’s latest stable distribution. Remember: Ubuntu releases are frozen snapshots of Unstable (or, to quote http://www.ubuntulinux.org/ubuntu/relationship/, “of the best of the open source world”) whereas Testing will constantly receive incremental updates as the fresh packages migrate down through Sid.
“So, as Ubuntu has rather cruelly demonstrated, where does this leave Debian? All snorting and hot under the collar, and none too keen on taking the medicine in the form of Ubuntu’s optmizations,from the sound of it.”
Erm… How does the creation of a team dedicated to incorporating Ubuntu’s improvements indicate an *un*willingness to do so?
The FSF has long been recommending using the GPL instead of the LGPL for libraries, and has decided that the first L in LGPL is for “Lesser”, not for “Library”.
Not that I care about what FSF says but do you have Any link to prove these words or you are just trolling?
Not that I care about what FSF says but do you have Any link to prove these words or you are just trolling?
‘course I have :
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#GPLCompatibleLicen…
quote :
GNU Lesser General Public License, or GNU LGPL for short.
This is a free software license, but not a strong copyleft license, because it permits linking with non-free modules. It is compatible with the GNU GPL. We recommend it for special circumstances only.
> The problem is that the Qt license is GPL.
This is not problem for Qt, KDE, or the many users of the professional Qt license. If at all it’s a problem of LSB, which so far plays no important role at all. Remember all the ISV who jumped from the board when Userlinux refused to include Qt/KDE libs? (That was not the only reason for many people to leave that boat, but one reason)
BTW: Using Qt you can choose between three lisences, I mention this because many speak of “the Qt license”.
Besides from this, where is the problem i.r.t. Utubnu? Qt fullfills Debian’s requirements for free software and is included in Debian and Ubuntu. Were is the point in the Utubnu kontext?
This is a free software license, but not a strong copyleft license, because it permits linking with non-free modules. It is compatible with the GNU GPL. We recommend it for special circumstances only.
This is a special case, so I guess the LGPL is valid.
it’s a problem of LSB, which so far plays no important role at all
I say it does.
On the Qt vs Gtk issue…
The GPL license is the license intended for applications like Gnome/KDE
The LGPL was intended for libraries like Qt or Gtk (The reason why it’s called Library GPL or Lesser GPL)
Compilers are aplications but in most cases the programs compiled with them are not considered derived works of the compiler itself (neither from the makefile generator)
And i don’t think that KDE centric distributions should have any problem with including Gtk support for their distros (Since Gtk became some sort of defacto standard for propietary Linux Apps. like realplayer, Yahoo Messenger and others)
On LSB
Any linux user that hasn’t faced any problem with the dependencie hell is sure lucky (Provided that he/she exist)
LSB idea is to build a common base on wich to build linux distributions, there’s always chioce but in most cases then it’s better to keep with the standard.
On the Ubuntu/Debian issue
Ubuntu and Debian are not the same, period, efforts are being made to improve compatibility bettewen the two and that’s good news. But saying that Ubuntu(Stable) should be an Exact copy of Debian(unstable) is not a good idea IMO.