PDA

View Full Version : Desktop Environment / Window Manager Preference/Comparison Thread



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

regeya
January 16th, 2005, 08:46 AM
I went on a search through the forums, and read several heated messages in the mailinglist about inclusion/integration of KDE. Amusingly enough, some of those people were people who claimed to have stopped using Mandrake due to KDE being the main focus.

So I just have to ask: Have I come to the wrong place? I didn't install Ubuntu because I wanted a GNOME-centric desktop; I installed Ubuntu because it seemed to be a relatively stable, relatively stock-software system that was desktop-centric, followed standards, and didn't invent a gazillion different distribution-centric GUI tools. Ubuntu was that.

Truth be told, though, despite its clunkiness, I prefer KDE to GNOME, and I have multiple reasons that, if listed here, would start a flamewar.

So was I wrong? Is the main focus on building a GNOME desktop rather than a standards-driven desktop? If so, can anyone point me in the direction of a standards-driven desktop that's leaning toward KDE? I don't want to help cram anything down anyone's throat if people don't want KDE on their systems. If I was right, then I don't feel sorry for the poor, misguided GNOME zealots who've mistakenly believed this to be a GNOME-centric distribution.

My own stance on the KDE vs. GNOME issue, BTW: May the best system win.

Thank you for your time, and please, let's try to keep the discussion civil; I promise to try to do the same.

thechris
January 16th, 2005, 09:17 AM
I too am KDE over gnome. I plan to go with debian testing pretty soon. the gnome UI is just too much work to learn. while some may use it well, i cannot. i tried just recently. i literally hugged my monitor when KDE came back on... also, gnome always comes off as buggy, hacked together. i thought goneME was a great idea to bring the option to give people who didn't like gnome2.6 the ability to use gnome2.6...

my biggest concern is that they vastly change the entire UI over ONE RELEASE and didn't provide any backwards compatibility... there was actually a lot of debate over this during gnome2.6. by now anyone who hated 2.6 either took it and liked it, or went to kde, or went to flux/open/blackbox/fvwm/xfce, or back to windows.

I'd take windows over gnome for UI, by far. my hatred for gnome is pretty much everything in 2.6...

poofyhairguy
January 16th, 2005, 10:32 AM
So I just have to ask: Have I come to the wrong place? I didn't install Ubuntu because I wanted a GNOME-centric desktop; I installed Ubuntu because it seemed to be a relatively stable, relatively stock-software system that was desktop-centric, followed standards, and didn't invent a gazillion different distribution-centric GUI tools. Ubuntu was that.

Its not that KDE is a sore issue, its that its a non-issue. KDE support for Ubuntu (as in official support) is probably not in the cards. A third party might do it one day, but the Ubuntu project is just trying to be the best Gnome desktop it can be. There are not enough resources for KDE support.

The basic opinion is that in a linux world where there are hundreds of distros, its better to just do one thing well than be everything to everyone. Ubuntu as a project is trying to be THE gnome distro. Sounds like you either need Kanotix, Mepis, Libranet, Progeny Debian, or plain Jane Debian. As long as you as sticking to the good debian backbone, nothing should go wrong.


So was I wrong? Is the main focus on building a GNOME desktop rather than a standards-driven desktop?

Yes, the point of Ubuntu is to make a Gnome desktop, thats what makes it different from regular Debian (a standards driven desktop).




If so, can anyone point me in the direction of a standards-driven desktop that's leaning toward KDE? I don't want to help cram anything down anyone's throat if people don't want KDE on their systems. If I was right, then I don't feel sorry for the poor, misguided GNOME zealots who've mistakenly believed this to be a GNOME-centric distribution.

My own stance on the KDE vs. GNOME issue, BTW: May the best system win.

Thank you for your time, and please, let's try to keep the discussion civil; I promise to try to do the same.

I honestly don't think that there is a competition between KDE and Gnome, the both can win. KDE wins when a distro like Mepis kicks buns with it, and Gnome wins with every Ubuntu release.

wulf
January 16th, 2005, 10:52 AM
Its not that KDE is a sore issue, its that its a non-issue. KDE support for Ubuntu (as in official support) is probably not in the cards. A third party might do it one day, but the Ubuntu project is just trying to be the best Gnome desktop it can be. There are not enough resources for KDE support.
There has been discussion about spinning off a "Kubuntu" project but I'm not sure where that's got to - do a search on these boards to catch up.

However, I think Ubuntu's clear focus is a good thing. Until I installed it, I hadn't been happy with Gnome in the past and had always ended up using KDE (on various incarnations of SuSE and then Mandrake... I can't remember what I was using before that!); this time round, things are actually pretty smooth. When it comes down to it, the desktop environment is only the backdrop for running the tools that enable me to do the things I want to do.

There have been a few programs that haven't run too smoothly "out of the box" (or, at least, off synaptic) but most stuff has been pretty well behaved and I've been having a "good user experience".

If I came across a similar KDE based distro, with the same level of support and polish, I might consider it but at the moment I'm doing alright with Gnome. This is the world of Open Source, so, if I do get fed up then there are plenty of other alternatives (as well as places I could contribute time and money). However, I don't think anybody gains if people find a slick, well-polished release and then try to insist that it becomes another "kitchen sink" distro.

Wulf

Perfect Storm
January 16th, 2005, 12:51 PM
If people are so unhappy that KDE is so bad supported in Ubuntu, they might try a KDE based distro instead and it's not because the distros out there lacks for KDE desktops. Linux is about choises, if you don't like a distro you'll find one what's satisfied your need, and there are 100s of distros out there.

I'm quiet happy with gnome. I was actually KDE fanatic before I ran into Ubuntu (thanks bvc for the recommendation ;) ) and was sceptic with all the manually setup of stuff, but now I love it! I actually feel I've the control of what and where I want my stuff.

thechris, perhaps ubuntu is the wrong distro for you.

az
January 16th, 2005, 01:05 PM
Gnome also has a much better outlook when it comes to being free software.

Qt has a business model that is not entirely in that spirit. It is not a comunity driven project, but more of a company driven project. They charge for the Windows version of QT development tools, for example. Yes, it is released under the GPL, but in the long term, their business model may question that.

With gnome, there is no doubt.

What do you mean by "standards-driven desktop?"

ralph_ubuntu
January 16th, 2005, 01:30 PM
Gnome also has a much better outlook when it comes to being free software.

Qt has a business model that is not entirely in that spirit. It is not a comunity driven project, but more of a company driven project. They charge for the Windows version of QT development tools, for example. Yes, it is released under the GPL, but in the long term, their business model may question that.

With gnome, there is no doubt.

What do you mean by "standards-driven desktop?"
Excuse my language, but that utter bs.
Qt is released under the GPL and it will always stay under a free license as it will automatically be under a BSD like license if Trolltech ever gets sold to an other company.

Why making money with their product and at the same time giving all the development made possible by that money back to the community is not entirely in that spirit also is beyond me.

Again, excuse my language, but this kind of uninformed FUD simply ticks me off. Gnome is a great desktop (as is kde imho) and one surely doesn't need FUD to justify why one uses it.

Buffalo Soldier
January 16th, 2005, 02:28 PM
If people are so unhappy that KDE is so bad supported in Ubuntu, they might try a KDE based distro instead and it's not because the distros out there lacks for KDE desktops. Linux is about choises, if you don't like a distro you'll find one what's satisfied your need, and there are 100s of distros out there.

I'm quiet happy with gnome. I was actually KDE fanatic before I ran into Ubuntu (thanks bvc for the recommendation ;) ) and was sceptic with all the manually setup of stuff, but now I love it! I actually feel I've the control of what and where I want my stuff.

thechris, perhaps ubuntu is the wrong distro for you.

Totally agree with Artificial Intelligence. There are other debian-based distros that supports KDE. MEPIS is one example. And I don't think anyone can complain about MEPIS being more KDE-centric and Ubuntu being more GNOME-centric.

kleeman
January 16th, 2005, 04:23 PM
IMHO the issue here is applications: KDE actually has some apps that are better than
alternatives on gnome. Examples: k3b and lyx-qt

k3b is clearly the best cd burning app out there and many of the complaints
seen on this board are related to cd burning (audio is particularly bad)

lyx-qt is clearly the superior latex frontend. While not strictly a kde app, it is in universe
and looks better with kde libs installed.

When I install a linux distro such as Fedora even though the primary supported desktop is gnome there is decent kde support available which enables me to use the superior kde apps as addons.

Conlcusion: either provide basic level kde support so addons will work properly (k3b doesn't in warty) or put a major effort into gnome replacements. If you don't you will find users drifting away back to Fedora. Just my two cents worth.

Quest-Master
January 16th, 2005, 05:07 PM
IMHO the issue here is applications: KDE actually has some apps that are better than
alternatives on gnome. Examples: k3b and lyx-qt

k3b is clearly the best cd burning app out there and many of the complaints
seen on this board are related to cd burning (audio is particularly bad)

lyx-qt is clearly the superior latex frontend. While not strictly a kde app, it is in universe
and looks better with kde libs installed.

When I install a linux distro such as Fedora even though the primary supported desktop is gnome there is decent kde support available which enables me to use the superior kde apps as addons.

Conlcusion: either provide basic level kde support so addons will work properly (k3b doesn't in warty) or put a major effort into gnome replacements. If you don't you will find users drifting away back to Fedora. Just my two cents worth.

Conlcusion: either provide basic level kde support so addons will work properly (k3b doesn't in warty) or put a major effort into gnome replacements. If you don't you will find users drifting away back to Fedora. Just my two cents worth.

Err.. k3b works perfectly fine for me in Warty. :\

kleeman
January 16th, 2005, 05:20 PM
Well I have a scsi cd burner and have had constant problems which would have been sorted out if k3b had been fully supported. I use nautilus for data cd burning and cdrecord directly from the cli for audio burning so the issue is software. You sound like you have been lucky - I have seen many reports of problems with k3b in this forum...

ankitmalik
January 16th, 2005, 05:24 PM
I went on a search through the forums, and read several heated messages in the mailinglist about inclusion/integration of KDE. Amusingly enough, some of those people were people who claimed to have stopped using Mandrake due to KDE being the main focus.

So I just have to ask: Have I come to the wrong place? I didn't install Ubuntu because I wanted a GNOME-centric desktop; I installed Ubuntu because it seemed to be a relatively stable, relatively stock-software system that was desktop-centric, followed standards, and didn't invent a gazillion different distribution-centric GUI tools. Ubuntu was that.

Truth be told, though, despite its clunkiness, I prefer KDE to GNOME, and I have multiple reasons that, if listed here, would start a flamewar.

So was I wrong? Is the main focus on building a GNOME desktop rather than a standards-driven desktop? If so, can anyone point me in the direction of a standards-driven desktop that's leaning toward KDE? I don't want to help cram anything down anyone's throat if people don't want KDE on their systems. If I was right, then I don't feel sorry for the poor, misguided GNOME zealots who've mistakenly believed this to be a GNOME-centric distribution.

My own stance on the KDE vs. GNOME issue, BTW: May the best system win.

Thank you for your time, and please, let's try to keep the discussion civil; I promise to try to do the same.
What I did!

a) Install Ubuntu
b) Setup up Debian Unstable
c) sudo apt-get install -t unstable kde
d) Way to go!

zenwhen
January 16th, 2005, 06:22 PM
If you want something Ubuntu-like with KDE, try MEPIS.

http://www.mepis.org/

Kubuntu is also coming, apparently. :-&

I am very thankful for Ubuntu's focus on offering a wonderful Gnome-centric desktop, and would switch to Debian if that changed. The only thing KDE has to offer that I want on my system is K3B. It can do so many things that no single GTK app can, but IN MY OPINION it is still ugly as sin and is laid out about as cleanly as my bed after a night of drunken sex.

I use Ubuntu instead of Debian only because it does Gnome better than any other distro, and promises to do even more.

jdodson
January 16th, 2005, 06:59 PM
as far as it seems to me, kde works well with ubuntu. i am installing it now to test it. please understand that ubuntu does focus on gnome by the default. if you want to know why, look at the developers for ubuntu..... :mrgreen:

anyway, personally i feel gnome to be a great desktop(sometimes i use fluxbox or xfce) though.

will let you know how kde install goes...

jdodson
January 16th, 2005, 07:45 PM
ok after installing the kdebase only, which is the route i used to install kde, here are my comments.

1.) the menus contain the gnome stuff still. this is fine for me, but where is kwrite?

2.) everything else is fine.

i think this is a usable kde desktop if you addin the kde programs you need. which is as simple as apt-get install <package>

poofyhairguy
January 16th, 2005, 08:43 PM
Conlcusion: either provide basic level kde support so addons will work properly (k3b doesn't in warty) or put a major effort into gnome replacements. If you don't you will find users drifting away back to Fedora. Just my two cents worth.


You have to use sudo for it to work it Warty, The problem will come when Hoary is released, as currently its WILL NOT install K3B without some forcing. (for me)

I think the second option is more likely. The ubuntu community (not the dev. team) will hammer out something like gnomebaker or coaster.

regeya
January 16th, 2005, 11:19 PM
ok after installing the kdebase only, which is the route i used to install kde, here are my comments.

1.) the menus contain the gnome stuff still. this is fine for me, but where is kwrite?

2.) everything else is fine.

i think this is a usable kde desktop if you addin the kde programs you need. which is as simple as apt-get install <package>

You rock, jdodson. :D

I see some other posters having problems with k3b. Is that in Backports? If not, as I recall all I did to get a nicely-working fully-functional k3b was to add the Hoary sources to my sources.list, apt-get update && (forgive me if this is wrong as I'm not sitting at a Ubunto or debian box right now) apt-get build-dep cdrtools 'dvd+rw-tools' k3b && apt-get -b source cdrtools 'dvd+rw-tools' k3b (followed, naturally, with installing the newly built debs.)

Back on task, I keep seeing people calling Ubuntu a GNOME-centric distro and things along those lines, and I'm having problems finding that bit of info. I can see that GNOME is the supported desktop, but the closest I've found to a statement of being GNOME-centric was a comment I found elsewhere (not linking to it because I'm too lazy to look it up :oops: ) that was along the lines of, well, the Ubuntu project didn't have the resources to pursue both desktops, but that there are KDE packages available. If some dev-type can confirm this that'd be cool.

That's cool and all, and I can respect that, especially since neat-freaks seem to be flocking to GNOME, and maybe nobody will give a flying flip when KDE 3.4 and KDE 4.0 come out. That's cool, too, provided the current GNOME apps get a bit more fleshed out and this trend toward a more mature development cycle continues, and GNOME doesn't disappear in a flurry of patent-violation lawsuits when it gets more Mono-centric. 8-) I'm really interested to see what will happen next with GNOME, now that they seem to be headed down a good road. Once gStreamer is more fleshed out, apps get a bit more robust, scripting GNOME apps is as simple (or hopefully simpler than other OSes), etc. maybe I won't care at all about KDE. We shall see. :D

kleeman
January 16th, 2005, 11:43 PM
I have tried k3b sudo and nothing changes. The hoary recompilation sounds interesting but my point really was that something basic like audio cd burning should work easily out of the box and it doesn't for a lot of folks at present. I get a whole bunch of wierd kernel messages and the crwriter stops responding. None of this happens with a simple cli cdrecord operation as mentioned in the audio howto. This suggests that k3b needs tweaking for ubuntu (it works with Fedora btw). I have also tried the hoary backport without success.

I have also looked at a whole bunch of gnome tools (like gnomebaker) and it is pretty clear they are still very immature compared to k3b..... For me the cli is just as easy....

Buffalo Soldier
January 17th, 2005, 12:52 AM
Conlcusion: either provide basic level kde support so addons will work properly (k3b doesn't in warty) or put a major effort into gnome replacements. If you don't you will find users drifting away back to Fedora. Just my two cents worth.

Option 1: (there are ways to install KDE)
a) Install Ubuntu
b) Setup up Debian Unstable
c) sudo apt-get install -t unstable kde

Option 2: (maybe Ubuntu is not for you)
a) http://www.mepis.org
b) http://fedora.redhat.com

CHOICES. That's what nice about linux It has so many distros. Each with it's own strenght and weakness.

What I used to do before finally choosing Ubuntu was I tried a few (Fedora, MEPIS, Suse, Mandrake). I guess people should go out and try a few distros. Then chooses one that their most comfortable with (i.e. agree with the developer's philosophy/principles, desktop environment, release frequency, user group and etc).

With so many choices out there, I think it is easier to choose a ship that's heading where you want to go. Rather than boarding a ship that's going another way and then trying to change it's course 180 degrees.

And linux is free. It will not cost you a dime to change distribution. Just my two cents worth.

kleeman
January 17th, 2005, 01:45 AM
Don't get me wrong, I think Ububtu is great- I have always wanted an easy to use Debian system. I am simply pointing out that if a few very select apps were improved it would blow the competition out of the water. I don't consider this turning the distro 180 degrees simply honest ordinary user feedback... just my four cents ;-)

TravisNewman
January 17th, 2005, 05:20 AM
I don't think the idea was to have a Gnome-CENTRIC desktop, I think they chose Gnome because it represented their ideals more. Ubuntu is, as far as I can tell, about having choices. You can install KDE, which I have done to test out and attempt to get rid of my aversion to it, and it works perfectly. It works better in Ubuntu than it ever has in any other distro I've used, and it isn't supported. That's why I think that you should use Ubuntu, thechris, because even though KDE isn't "supported" it still works, and it works well.

Personally, the fact that Gnome is the default and the fact that Ubuntu does Gnome better than any distro I've ever used make me use it. But it also runs all the other WMs better than any other distro, so just because KDE isn't the default doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't use it.

az
January 17th, 2005, 05:31 PM
"Qt is released under the GPL and it will always stay under a free license as it will automatically be under a BSD like license if Trolltech ever gets sold to an other company. "

A BSD licence can have restrictions. It is not neccessarily free.


"Why making money with their product and at the same time giving all the development made possible by that money back to the community is not entirely in that spirit also is beyond me."

That is not the point. The point is restricting the rights of the users of the software. If you can make money without shutting users out (like free software in Ubuntu), that would be great. When you start saying that some people have to pay to legally use the software, that is non-free. Call it freeware. 'Nothing to do with the GPL.


"Again, excuse my language, but this kind of uninformed FUD simply ticks me off. Gnome is a great desktop (as is kde imho) and one surely doesn't need FUD to justify why one uses it."

I it may just be that I have a more rigid view than you do. You do not have to subscribe to my opinion. I think you are naive, and you may think I am cynical.

jdodson
January 17th, 2005, 06:28 PM
A BSD licence can have restrictions. It is not neccessarily free.

"the bsd" license is more free than the GPL. it lets you do whatever you want and even lock the code back down and make it proprietary. then again, thats why i don't like "the bsd" license. there might be variants of the bsd license, to that i don't know.

http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license.html

its not even a page long.

ralph_ubuntu
January 17th, 2005, 08:14 PM
"Qt is released under the GPL and it will always stay under a free license as it will automatically be under a BSD like license if Trolltech ever gets sold to an other company. "

A BSD licence can have restrictions. It is not neccessarily free.
Please, stop talking about things you obviously don't have the slightest clue about. As jodson already said, what you claim is simply wrong and if you are worried about QT, do some googling or look at kde.org, the license is online.




That is not the point. The point is restricting the rights of the users of the software. If you can make money without shutting users out (like free software in Ubuntu), that would be great. When you start saying that some people have to pay to legally use the software, that is non-free. Call it freeware. 'Nothing to do with the GPL.
It seems to be very hard for you to come to terms with the fact that QT is under the GPL, so how it doesn't have anything to do with the GPL is beyond me. And in case you weren't aware of it, the GPL does not allow to write closed source applications that get distributed with GPLd code, so where exactly is the problem with Trolltech also selling it under an other license that allows those apps?



I it may just be that I have a more rigid view than you do. You do not have to subscribe to my opinion. I think you are naive, and you may think I am cynical.
Again, excuse my harsh responses, but no, you are simply repeating FUD you heard somewhere online without knowing what you are talking about.

Quake
January 17th, 2005, 08:47 PM
QT Open Source license
http://www.trolltech.com/products/qt/opensource.html

az
January 18th, 2005, 02:21 AM
Free software is about protecting your rights. The GPL is a tool used to distribute free software.

"Again, excuse my harsh responses, but no, you are simply repeating FUD you heard somewhere online without knowing what you are talking about."


I think you make the mistake of assuming that everything that is GPL'ed is software made by someone who is thinking about your rights. Some companies use the GPL licence only for marketing reasons. This is the situation that you have to be wary of. And no, forking off a project is not a good thing. It is making the best of a bad situation.


I am not spreading FUD. On the contrary; people should be aware of their rights and demand nothing less than free software. Ubuntu comes really close to being completely free. Out of all the linux distributions that you know, how many can you say do not use one single item of non-free (restricted) software? This is a serious issue.

If people do not care about having their rights protected, they will lose them.

Insofar as the bsd licence (or more accurately bsd-style licences as there are several), it does not protect your rights. You should have the right to view, edit, and redistribute the source code. You are not obliged to do this by a bsd-style licence and you should be worried about that.

This is why I pick and chose what software I use. KDE has it's advantages, but I prefer Gnome. It is my choice to stand by a project that I feel is more vested in protecting my rights, than another which can maybe offer more features (today). This is how free software grows. If people just used what already works, regardless of the licencing principles, there would be no GNU/linux as we know it today.

Again, you do not have to share my opinion. And saying that I am ignorant about the issue will not change my point of view.

ralph_ubuntu
January 18th, 2005, 08:01 AM
So let me get this straight.
First you complaint that QT is not free software though it is under the GPL. Then you claim that there is a thread that QT might one day not be free anymore.

After it has been pointed out to you that this will not happen, as it will even in the case of Trolltech being sold be under a bsd style license, specifically to protect free software projects using it, you claim that a bsd style license can have restrictions and is not necessarily free.

After it has been pointed out to you that this is simply wrong you now claim that a bsd license is to free as it also allows using the code for closed source projects.

And as if all that wasn't enough you know proclaim from your moral high horse that because of this you are using a project which is based on a toolkit that is licensed under the LGPL, a license that is called lesser precisely for the reason that it also allows the code to be used in closed source projects.

To sum it up, you don't know what you're talking about, you are just simply spreading FUD and everytime your errors are pointed out to you change your tune to remain on the moral high ground you seem to think you are standing on. Now I don't want to convince you that you are wrong, you have shown time and time again that you are not willing to change your position no matter what, but I simply refuse to let your FUD go unanswered.

You're not standing on the moral high ground, you're standing on a heap made of ignorance and FUD and it stinks.

nocturn
January 18th, 2005, 09:01 AM
Add to this discussion that RMS himself said that he considers KDE to be free....

If you have ever had a discussion with RMS over this kind of thing, you know how purist he is about this. If he considers something free, you can bet that it really is free.

If you pick Gnome over KDE, go ahead (I'm using Gnome at the moment too), but to it for technical reasons because it is no more free then KDE is.

jdodson
January 18th, 2005, 05:57 PM
So let me get this straight.
First you complaint that QT is not free software though it is under the GPL. Then you claim that there is a thread that QT might one day not be free anymore.

After it has been pointed out to you that this will not happen, as it will even in the case of Trolltech being sold be under a bsd style license, specifically to protect free software projects using it, you claim that a bsd style license can have restrictions and is not necessarily free.

After it has been pointed out to you that this is simply wrong you now claim that a bsd license is to free as it also allows using the code for closed source projects.

And as if all that wasn't enough you know proclaim from your moral high horse that because of this you are using a project which is based on a toolkit that is licensed under the LGPL, a license that is called lesser precisely for the reason that it also allows the code to be used in closed source projects.

To sum it up, you don't know what you're talking about, you are just simply spreading FUD and everytime your errors are pointed out to you change your tune to remain on the moral high ground you seem to think you are standing on. Now I don't want to convince you that you are wrong, you have shown time and time again that you are not willing to change your position no matter what, but I simply refuse to let your FUD go unanswered.

You're not standing on the moral high ground, you're standing on a heap made of ignorance and FUD and it stinks.

well to be fair to azz, i think what he is saying is that someday QT might take the code it adds to the GPL version and make it proprietary. this "could" happen, albiet unlikely, however a possibility.

also i think azz is saying that "the bsd" license does not adhere to the 4 software freedoms: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html. to be fair, they are or are not freedoms depending on how you think about it. the four software freedoms are in a sense "rules" to govern our software freedom. i don't consider them harsh, i consider them a good thing. as i see it "the bsd" license is more free than the GPL. however, "the bsd" license does not have my best interests in mind imo. it still lets "the man" lock the code down and do whatever "the man" sees fit. the GPL is different and i think for most projects a better license than "the bsd" one. however i don't condem anyone for choosing the bsd license, i just would not recommend it.

i have read MANY interviews with richard stallman who is a very avid gnu spokesman. stallman considers KDE and QT to both be free in the sense of freedom. in my eyes and stallmans the issue of whether kde is free is over. any software released under the GPL is free as in freedom, and in my eyes regardless of ANY dual licensing involved(i do not condone dual licensing at all fwiw).

i remember a day when QT was not free. honestly thats why i did not use it. now i got so used to gnome and fluxbox that i really don't want to switch. plus (and i really don't mean offense by this) but KDE is kinda kludgey. anyways, i do use gnome because it was once free when kde was not. now they both are, and we are all better off because of it.

az
January 18th, 2005, 10:45 PM
ralph_ubuntu - You cannot read. I never said that kde,qt,gpl was not free. You are completely missing my point. If you do not care about your freedoms, that is your problem. You insult me by calling my opinion FUD. That would be implying that I am trying to undermine free, opensourced software.

The fact is if you do not protect your rights, you lose them.

Did you know that there is no cdrdao in debian Woody because the libedc_ecc licence was non free at the time? When libedc_ecc reammended their license, it was put back into Unstable and it made its way back to Sarge?

http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/10/msg00005.html

http://packages.debian.org/cgi-bin/search_packages.pl?keywords=cdrdao&searchon=names&subword=1&version=all&release=all


Did you know that the cdrecord source recently contained a note from Joerg Shilling saying that there are parts of the code he will not permit people to modify?

http://www.debian.org/News/weekly/2004/32/

"Cdrecord on the Way to non-free. Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo noticed that Jörg Schilling has added a non-modification clause to a file within the cdrecord distribution which renders the package non-free since this is in direct conflict with the GNU General Public License."

http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/gerv/archives/006193.html
This, again, is non-free.
If no one does anything about it, you will lose the freedoms you enjoy.

There are yet no fully functionnal free java envorinments available, yet OpenOffice.org is relying more and more on java functionality (see the 2.0 version) If Sun were such a wonderful pro-GPL company, why do they not make JAVA free (Sorry, it already is free, it is just not open source, nor GPLed)?


"If you have ever had a discussion with RMS over this kind of thing, you know how purist he is about this. If he considers something free, you can bet that it really is free."

Sure it is free, it is released under the GPL, again, I never said that it was not free. Anyone who has had a conversation with RMS can also attest to the fact that he can not be the nicest person to deal with. I wonder if he would have been able to answer you here, without violating this site's policies regarding being respectful and avoiding calling someone an .... well ignorant....

jdong
January 18th, 2005, 11:15 PM
My mouse is hovering above the "Lock Thread" button. Less hostility, please.

Buffalo Soldier
January 19th, 2005, 12:48 AM
There are yet no fully functionnal free java envorinments available, yet OpenOffice.org is relying more and more on java functionality (see the 2.0 version) If Sun were such a wonderful pro-GPL company, why do they not make JAVA free (Sorry, it already is free, it is just not open source, nor GPLed)?
Maybe if more people start using and supporting GNOME office / KDE office and became less reliable on OpenOffice.org. Maybe only then would Sun license Java under GPL.

ralph_ubuntu
January 19th, 2005, 01:30 AM
azz - please stop implying that I don't care about my freedom and please stop implying that people who use KDE don't care about freedom as much as you do. You are thereby not only insulting a large part of the linux user base but also one of the biggest and most impressive open source projects.

As I pointed out in my previous post I think none of your arguments holds any water, instead you are changing your arguments no matter what even contradicting yourself in the process. Now I'm certain that you don't agree with me here, but please, how about answering my points instead of trying to teach me about the value of freedom (that you seem to know oh so much about).

As jdong rightly observed, this thread is getting out of hand and I know that I'm part of the problem, so unless you have anything of substance to say about the issue at hand the discussion is over on my part.

poofyhairguy
January 19th, 2005, 01:41 AM
My mouse is hovering above the "Lock Thread" button. Less hostility, please.


Please don't jdong. Its got to work itself out. Gnome and KDE people keep having to deal with each other (for now....xfce.....)......Ubuntu forces conflict on this now because one is chosen over another.

Yet the thruth is that Ubuntu "supported" KDE it would be weak at best (like Fedora), and not be what KDE people want. They should really go elsewhere. There are many options.

My girlfriend dislikes gnome, so I give her a distro with KDE (SUSE). I don't begrudge her opinion, and I'm glad she appreciates opensource.

Freedom is what you make of it. Some people see freedom in different ways. At least both sides can agree that the freedom of choice is the most important one of all.

Buffalo Soldier
January 19th, 2005, 01:49 AM
Yet the thruth is that Ubuntu "supported" KDE it would be weak at best (like Fedora), and not be what KDE people want. They should really go elsewhere. There are many options.

My girlfriend dislikes gnome, so I give her a distro with KDE (SUSE). I don't begrudge her opinion, and I'm glad she appreciates opensource.

Couldn't agree more. They are many other GNU/Linux distribution for the people who want KDE.

But I think saying "They should really go elsewhere" is a bit harsh. It kind of sounds like you chasing people away or throwing people out from a building :)

I know there are some GNU/Linux users who can be a bit pushy when asking for some applications or features that they want. But I think they are only the minority. Most users do play nicely in here. Being polite, asking for help, giving help, supporting and contributing.

poofyhairguy
January 19th, 2005, 02:54 AM
Couldn't agree more. They are many other GNU/Linux distribution for the people who want KDE.

Exactly. Mepis was around before Ubuntu.


But I think saying "They should really go elsewhere" is a bit harsh. It kind of sounds like you chasing people away or throwing people out from a building :)

I hope I don't sound harsh, but it must be known that Ubuntu does not want to be everything to everyone. Jack-of-all-trades are good at nothing. If people accept that, try the universe KDE, Gnome, or work to make a new project like Kubuntu then all is well. As is Ubuntu justs wants to be the best Gnome based distro it can be. I don't see why that is bad given so many toher choices. I don't see why this should make KDE support a 'sore issue.'

It is a non-issue.

kleeman
January 19th, 2005, 03:15 AM
I just listened to the Shuttleworth interview on lugradio and was very pleased to hear how supportive he was of the Kubuntu project for exactly the reasons alluded to above i.e. some folks prefer certain kde apps. This sort of inclusive approach seems very nice and won't dilute the primary focus of developers.

jdodson
January 19th, 2005, 04:37 AM
I just listened to the Shuttleworth interview on lugradio and was very pleased to hear how supportive he was of the Kubuntu project for exactly the reasons alluded to above i.e. some folks prefer certain kde apps. This sort of inclusive approach seems very nice and won't dilute the primary focus of developers.

i agree. kubuntu and ubuntu people should holds hands and be friends. its a funny thought but i am serious. i welcome the kde lovers as much as the gnome lovers. we should applaud choice and our ability to all be different. its what makes the world fun...... or cause a ton of wars, depending on how you see it.

poofyhairguy
January 19th, 2005, 06:02 AM
i agree. kubuntu and ubuntu people should holds hands and be friends. its a funny thought but i am serious. i welcome the kde lovers as much as the gnome lovers. we should applaud choice and our ability to all be different. its what makes the world fun...... or cause a ton of wars, depending on how you see it.


What a nice end to a nasty thread.

jdong
January 19th, 2005, 12:52 PM
They should really go elsewhere. There are many options.


Yeah, and I already have :(. It was a tough decision to make, and I hope when Hoary's out, I can come back again.

poofyhairguy
January 19th, 2005, 05:39 PM
Yeah, and I already have :(. It was a tough decision to make, and I hope when Hoary's out, I can come back again.

The preview release will be here before you know it!

Buffalo Soldier
January 19th, 2005, 05:59 PM
I hope I don't sound harsh, but it must be known that Ubuntu does not want to be everything to everyone. Jack-of-all-trades are good at nothing. If people accept that, try the universe KDE, Gnome, or work to make a new project like Kubuntu then all is well. As is Ubuntu justs wants to be the best Gnome based distro it can be. I don't see why that is bad given so many toher choices. I don't see why this should make KDE support a 'sore issue.'

It is a non-issue.


I just listened to the Shuttleworth interview on lugradio and was very pleased to hear how supportive he was of the Kubuntu project for exactly the reasons alluded to above i.e. some folks prefer certain kde apps. This sort of inclusive approach seems very nice and won't dilute the primary focus of developers.

I've listened to the interview too. Shuttleworth even gave an example of the space shuttle being a bad design because it tries to be too many things at once.

davro
January 21st, 2005, 12:01 PM
i agree. kubuntu and ubuntu people should holds hands and be friends. its a funny thought but i am serious. i welcome the kde lovers as much as the gnome lovers. we should applaud choice and our ability to all be different. its what makes the world fun...... or cause a ton of wars, depending on how you see it.

Here here.....

Make linux distros not war!

phorim
February 7th, 2005, 03:15 AM
I don't know about others out there, but I thought I was going to break something trying to figure out where everything was in Ubuntu. I take it this wasn't designed for former ******* users to start using Linux for the first time. I'm using synaptic to install KDE as I'm writing this, but I thought I'd just give my thoughts instead of breaking stuff around the room.

kassetra
February 7th, 2005, 03:23 AM
What couldn't you find? In my experience, KDE overwhelms new users.

az
February 7th, 2005, 03:24 AM
Actually, it is a much improved way to use your computer. If people want windows, they should stick with windows.

kassetra
February 7th, 2005, 03:31 AM
In my experience, it's worked like this:

People that have only one app for the job and tweak their system so that it's "clean" or that use a mac love gnome.
People that install multiple applications for the same purpose and have a giant "start menu" tend to prefer kde.

Xian
February 7th, 2005, 03:37 AM
I'm using synaptic to install KDE as I'm writing this, but I thought I'd just give my thoughts instead of breaking stuff around the room.
If using Gnome makes you want to break things in your room you actually need a psychiatrist. Just using KDE will not do the trick and is only an illusion of a cure.

zenwhen
February 7th, 2005, 03:53 AM
If using Gnome makes you want to break things in your room you actually need a psychiatrist. Just using KDE will not do the trick and is only an illusion of a cure.


I agree. I love my nice clean gnome desktop, I love my GTK apps, and I would love to have a replacement for K3B so I could get these dirty QT libs off my system.

http://zenhardwhere.com/images/glider.png

DJ_Max
February 7th, 2005, 04:01 AM
I find Gnome easier to use, and less "clogged" then KDE. Windows GUI & Gnome's are different, you have to get used to it. Otherwise you'll say the same with KDE.

Yukonjack
February 7th, 2005, 04:10 AM
Open your mind be free of windows start looking around your desktop you are not in jail anymore you are free.
Seriously if you think KDE will be better for you have fun.
If you want something like windows maybe you should go purchase one of the other distro's like Lindows or something like that, there are a few out there. But I wish folks from windows would quit thinking GNU/linux should be like windows, it's not and I hope it never does.
Read a few documents look at you help files lot's of info for you to get your way around. You can expect to come out of your car and jump in a plane an fly if you have never done it.
Good luck

Randabis
February 7th, 2005, 04:34 AM
Open your mind be free of windows start looking around your desktop you are not in jail anymore you are free.
Seriously if you think KDE will be better for you have fun.
If you want something like windows maybe you should go purchase one of the other distro's like Lindows or something like that, there are a few out there. But I wish folks from windows would quit thinking GNU/linux should be like windows, it's not and I hope it never does.
Read a few documents look at you help files lot's of info for you to get your way around. You can expect to come out of your car and jump in a plane an fly if you have never done it.
Good luck
Linspire you mean...LindowsOS no longer exists due to lawsuits. There's also Linare.

I don't like either... Go figure...

Gnome is good, but I perfer XFCE.

KiwiNZ
February 7th, 2005, 05:21 AM
I find myself switching between Gnome ,KDE and XFCE depending on my feelings when I log on .
Don't you just love the choice and freedom Linux gives you .

Dana
February 7th, 2005, 05:21 AM
I sympathize with your feelings regarding Gnome. But you just have to look at Gnome and KDE being two opposing philosophies at work. I love Gnome for the clean interface. But I too feel as if I am missing things... I just don't know what. :lol:
That said Gnome has much going for it.

Having used KDE with SuSe I was overwhelmed by the number of choices available in the menus. Real overkill in my mind. I would rather have something somewhere between the two but I don't think there is anything stopping someone from simply paring down KDE to something more reasonable.

I'm going to spend some time with Gnome and Ubuntu and see how I feel about them over an extended period. I have a set of SuSe 9.2 Pro disks but am in no hurry to load it up. As I said the interface in general is overwhelming for me... on the other hand I love YAST.

Hope you get KDE working well for yourself. You have staked out your philosophical ground.

Dana

Yukonjack
February 7th, 2005, 05:31 AM
Linspire you mean...LindowsOS no longer exists due to lawsuits. There's also Linare.

Thanks I only remember reading about them some where, I don't keep up with those windows look alike, but they do have a place for some of the folks. :wink:

miho
February 7th, 2005, 07:08 AM
I already installed KDE on my PC, I just need to figure out how to make a taskbar for it now. 8)

Michael
February 9th, 2005, 02:01 AM
I find myself switching between Gnome ,KDE and XFCE depending on my feelings when I log on .
Don't you just love the choice and freedom Linux gives you .

hehe :D

"hmm.. feeling crazy today, let's run fluxbox"
:p

When I first started using Linux (about a year ago, for a uni course) I saw KDE and knew only KDE. But since then, I have familiarized myself with GNOME, and now I can't stand KDE no more. Too cluttered, too many features, messy.. not like GNOME that equals elegance, ease-of-use and it's just more pretty :D

Oh, and I really like Debian and APT. That explains why I LOVE Ubuntu :)

ozar
February 9th, 2005, 02:32 AM
When I first started using Linux 5 years ago, I tried Gnome and really hated it. Since that time, I've tried it again and again with each new release, but have always reverted back to KDE. Decided to give Ubuntu/Gnome a spin for the first time last week and I must say, I'm really liking Gnome more all the time. Ubuntu is very nice, too.

KDE works well for me but it has problems with fonts from one application to the next, whereas Gnome seems to handle all fonts the same. I do miss my K3B for CD/DVD burning, but Nautilus is working okay up to this point. I'll certainly continue to experiment with Gnome and will undoubtedly play with KDE more in the future, but for now all I can say is, "Gnome 2.8 and above rocks!" 8-)

JoWilly
February 9th, 2005, 02:40 AM
and I would love to have a replacement for K3B so I could get these dirty QT libs off my system.


Install Gnomebaker (Section Gnome/Main in the hoary repositories).

You can also download it from here and install with "dpkg -i":
http://people.debian.org/~goedson/packages/ubuntu/warty/gnomebaker/releases/i386/gnomebaker_0.3-1ubuntu1_i386.deb

machiner
February 9th, 2005, 02:42 AM
Ahhh - no. In fact - to me I like it better than any other window manager (or GUI or whatever you want to call it) I've used...litestep, et al for windows and the same slew of them in linux.

Gnome doesn't insult my intelligence or make me want to redecorate.

If the argument is KDE VS. GNOME...I think there needs to be a new argument.

arthureggplant
February 22nd, 2005, 06:06 AM
Interestingly, I left Mandrake for Ubuntu. I use KDE. Gnome has some nice things, but I'm used to KDE and it's what I prefer to use. I actually am not interested at all in the KDE vs. Gnome arguments- they both work well for some people. I happen to find KDE works better for me for what I do (kate and konqueror is my preferred way to do web app development). Ok, I probably could work my way up to an argument for KDE, but that's not all that I'm interested in.

When I started using Ubuntu a month ago, I went straight to to hoary and grabbed kde 3.3 out of universe. Haven't looked back and things work well enough to use for me. I'd be using a standard debain install, but frankly, what is most attractive about Ubuntu for me is the regular schedule of releases. The philosophy and design of debian is attractive, but I don't want to wait and wait and wait for new releases of software.

So here I am. I'm not a super linux head. I know macs much better, but I can stumble around enough in the dark to make things work. apt-get is a powerful enough tool to let relatively new people to linux get what they need. Which is why I like debian based distros. Mandrake, while nice in that recent software comes with it, leaves me a bit shaky. I much prefer apt-get to urpmi. There are some great things about Mandrake, but I was willing to leave it for apt-get. And I'm happy about that.

I guess my plug is for debian with a release schedule that includes the software I want to use. I love what debian is, I just get a bit impatient. So maybe one way to look at why people want to run Ubuntu is not just that it has a great implementation of Gnome (it does), but that it is a darn tootin nice install of debian.

Wardhog
February 23rd, 2005, 03:56 AM
Wow. The only reason I can give for preferring Gnome is the visual style of it.
I can see I need to fiddle with the desktop a lot to learn things and maybe then review my choice to remake it from a more informed POV.

Is there some kind of brief breakdown somewhere of the pros and cons of KDE and Gnome?

akurashy
February 23rd, 2005, 05:01 AM
Flame wars of Gnome and KDE are so childish.. It is stupid after all they are good, what you call opinion sometimes the other user think is a insult to KDE or Gnome and start saying crap... Anyway I like Gnome after all, decent look, friendly as ever and Gnome + Ubuntu is really the best choice ever done. If you like KDE go to to synaptic or terminal and apt get it. Doing a flame war is useless like I said, Both gnome and KDE have a purpose and they both good. But everyone have their opinion. And some people might not listen of what are you opinating completely and go mad and start cussing at you. Of course if you are talking to a Gnome fanboy or KDE fanboy that is immuture you really better run for it, those people are annoying like hell! *If someone is like that hope he don't get offended will ya!* Not saying that all Gnome or KDE fanboys are annoying is just like there some people with big mouths that don't even know what they talking about. Is sad I know :)

Anyway this is my 2 cents to this thread :D!

Ironi
February 23rd, 2005, 08:52 AM
Is there some kind of brief breakdown somewhere of the pros and cons of KDE and Gnome?
Not as far as I know. Basically, you use KDE if you want features and flexibility (excessively so). You use GNOME if you want visually appealing apps that hopefully get the job done (and if they're missing features that you need, well... you don't actually need them. The features, that is, not the app. You need the app).

neighborlee
February 23rd, 2005, 08:55 AM
Excuse my language, but that utter bs.
Qt is released under the GPL and it will always stay under a free license as it will automatically be under a BSD like license if Trolltech ever gets sold to an other company.

Why making money with their product and at the same time giving all the development made possible by that money back to the community is not entirely in that spirit also is beyond me.

Again, excuse my language, but this kind of uninformed FUD simply ticks me off. Gnome is a great desktop (as is kde imho) and one surely doesn't need FUD to justify why one uses it.
-----------
its not gpl for windows..check their site and you will see your info is incorrect. This does matter for those of us wanting to cross develop and for those of us finding relavancy in 100% free software.

its only NOW going to be gpl 'for windows' in quater 4 ( late 2005 ) and they do it to maintain they say a mindset of open source software. Gnome/gtk has been donig that for sometime now which is why I prefer gnome ( always will ) to this day. That does not mean I think kde is nasty just that I believe in 100% free software and gnome started out that way, and thats where my loyalty remains.

cheers
nl

regeya
February 24th, 2005, 07:41 AM
Yeah, and I already have :(. It was a tough decision to make, and I hope when Hoary's out, I can come back again.

Wow, what I get from this thread is that Ubuntu is for everybody, but it's not for everybody. ;-)

It's a real shame that there are apparently people attached to the Ubuntu project that have a use-GNOME-or-get-out attitude. Note that I'm typing this from within Firefox on a GNOME desktop. But if something else comes along that knocks the socks off of everything that currently exists, what will happen--will Ubuntu change with the times, or will people just keep shouting "shut up and drink your whiskey"?

It's a serious question, and not intended to incite more flames (wow, I hadn't paid attention!) and the overall answers (from people who matter most, such as developer types) will determine whether or not I keep using Ubuntu, and my recommendation (or not) of Ubuntu to family and friends.

nocturn
February 24th, 2005, 10:06 AM
-----------
its not gpl for windows..check their site and you will see your info is incorrect. This does matter for those of us wanting to cross develop and for those of us finding relavancy in 100% free software.

its only NOW going to be gpl 'for windows' in quater 4 ( late 2005 ) and they do it to maintain they say a mindset of open source software. Gnome/gtk has been donig that for sometime now which is why I prefer gnome ( always will ) to this day. That does not mean I think kde is nasty just that I believe in 100% free software and gnome started out that way, and thats where my loyalty remains.

cheers
nl

From a practival POV I agree with you, it would be nice to have it GPL'd on win32 too.

But morally speaking, win32 is a closed platform, so Free Software for it is a duality.
I can understand companies or people reasoning, if you are going to shell out cash for proprietary windows, we want a piece of it.
If you do it the Free way, all the way, QT is Free too.

If I maintained an OSS project on both platforms, I *might* also consider charging for the Windows version, just because I hate working on the mess Windows makes or consider dropping support for it.

nocturn
February 24th, 2005, 10:12 AM
Please don't jdong. Its got to work itself out. Gnome and KDE people keep having to deal with each other (for now....xfce.....)......Ubuntu forces conflict on this now because one is chosen over another.

Yet the thruth is that Ubuntu "supported" KDE it would be weak at best (like Fedora), and not be what KDE people want. They should really go elsewhere. There are many options.

My girlfriend dislikes gnome, so I give her a distro with KDE (SUSE). I don't begrudge her opinion, and I'm glad she appreciates opensource.

Freedom is what you make of it. Some people see freedom in different ways. At least both sides can agree that the freedom of choice is the most important one of all.


The problem is that many of the KDE centric distros are walking the commercial path nowdays.

SuSE was the first distro I really liked (arround 1998). But I dropped them for not having ISO downloads, closing development on YaST and I do not like UnitedLinux.

After SuSE came Mandrake, but they are restricting there Open nature too.

So, I decided to limit my choice to distro's that had a social contract like Debian (altough stable is too old).
This moved me to Gentoo (too much compiling) and finally to Ubuntu.

Point is that there are not so many Free distro's using KDE, and some like MEPIS do not offer release cycles and security updates.

And although I'm running Ubuntu with Gnome (which I really like now, but I hated the 1. series), my wife is running Ubunutu with KDE, so will my parents.

I'm basicly happy with the level of support for KDE in Hoary (kubuntu) though.

Zaphod_B
February 24th, 2005, 10:57 AM
Hello to all,

Even though I normally don't take part in discussions like this, I'd like to say, that I don't get the point.

I started working with Linux in 1994 using Suse, which was a Slackware those days, stayed with Suse until 1998 changing to Debian.

In October '04 I noticed the release annoncement of Ubuntu, working with Debian Sid and KDE. Frankly I did not take a look at Gnome for almost 3 years that time, but I downloaded each the live disc and install disc. I tryed the live cd on one of my workstations at work, looked at it for 5 minutes, installed it, ported my home directory from Sid/KDE to Ubuntu/Gnome and began to work with it.

Next, I ported my notebook at work Ubuntu and again started to work with it, feeling better every minute using it.

I also pushed Ubuntu as a distribition for install parties at the LUG, I am part of.

I migrated a friend of mine from Windows to Ubuntu and guess what, he felt good with it and is now migrating his second station to Ubuntu. He does not even know about the differences between Gnome and KDE, he just uses it and does not miss Windows at all.

But, at home I still use Debian Sid with KDE and I feel fine about that, too, even though I migrated my wife's notebook from Debian to Ubuntu. But I have much fun using my Sid/KDE every day at home.

So, what is the problem in using Gnome or Ubuntu, why not use both or one of them with applications from the other DE or even a complete different DE/WM.

Let's sum this up, I like using Ubuntu at least 8 hours a day at work or if I'm on the road with my notebook, and when I come home starting Debian and KDE I'm happy starting to play with it and have fun.

Why do I feel good using both of them any time I want to? Because it is Linux and I've got the freedom of choice.

Try thinking about that, this is much about what Linux stands for. What Linux is not about is flamewars.

Have fun,

Marcus

machiner
February 25th, 2005, 03:02 AM
I don't make the distro - so I've GOT NOTHING TO SAY!

ThePainter
February 25th, 2005, 07:03 PM
Hi,
I have used Mandrake in the past and it had problems working with gnome so I was stuck with kde and I found the default themes cold and industrial looking and it reminded me of Windows 97.
I then give UBUNTU a go with gnome and it seems to create a warm friendly atmosphere.
I have to dual boot due to a few jobs I can only run in XP but while Im there I feel as if Im away from home and long to return.
I use the default "Human" theme.
I dont know if its the Human colours or the idea behind the name "UBUNTU" or the morals behind Debian but using it feels like sitting by the fireside with a whisky where as Mandrake, KDE and XP are like going to work on a cold rainy Monday morning.

Maybe theres an old African spell on the word "Ubuntu" ?
And the word "Gnome" is cute where as KDE sounds like an exhaust pipe factory.

These issues sound a bit soppy but in the world of sales and marketing these things can make or break a Company. Even if it is a Free Market.

CowPie
February 26th, 2005, 08:48 AM
I went on a search through the forums, and read several heated messages in the mailinglist about inclusion/integration of KDE. Amusingly enough, some of those people were people who claimed to have stopped using Mandrake due to KDE being the main focus.

So I just have to ask: Have I come to the wrong place? I didn't install Ubuntu because I wanted a GNOME-centric desktop; I installed Ubuntu because it seemed to be a relatively stable, relatively stock-software system that was desktop-centric, followed standards, and didn't invent a gazillion different distribution-centric GUI tools. Ubuntu was that.

Truth be told, though, despite its clunkiness, I prefer KDE to GNOME, and I have multiple reasons that, if listed here, would start a flamewar.

So was I wrong? Is the main focus on building a GNOME desktop rather than a standards-driven desktop? If so, can anyone point me in the direction of a standards-driven desktop that's leaning toward KDE? I don't want to help cram anything down anyone's throat if people don't want KDE on their systems. If I was right, then I don't feel sorry for the poor, misguided GNOME zealots who've mistakenly believed this to be a GNOME-centric distribution.

My own stance on the KDE vs. GNOME issue, BTW: May the best system win.

Thank you for your time, and please, let's try to keep the discussion civil; I promise to try to do the same.
No, most people are glad that there is choice. Some just want to convince others that their choice is right ;)

bored2k
February 26th, 2005, 10:08 AM
While using KDE i feel like i'm just emulating "Redmond's" way .

No matter how much i change kde i just get that feeling that im not on the desired spot.

Hey, Xandros DID choose KDE to appeal to Redmond fans, didnt it ?

as much as i like crystal theme, every time i see something/ some icons that barely remembers me of KDE i just feel like my PC is gonna start crying asking for some real stuPh.


Gnome/Enlightenment/Blackbox, gives me just what i need , a different, fast and for all thats good in this world basically clutter free desktop.

xandros/redmond appealers that dont wanna teach anything nu to the user = kde
ubuntu, arguably the distro poised to become debian's frontman = gnome

for tastes theyre's colors ... brown is the one i chose ;-)

asimon
February 27th, 2005, 10:23 AM
Gnome also has a much better outlook when it comes to being free software.
Qt has a business model that is not entirely in that spirit.

GTK+ and many Gnome libs are licensed under LGPL. Thus Qt under GPL is actually more in the spirit of Free Software then the former ones. This of course assums that you mean free as in freedom.

az
February 27th, 2005, 01:26 PM
This just demonstates that the people at Trolltek have no idea what free software is.

The LGPL allows for gpl code to be linked with proprietairy code. In some situations, this is the only method to pave the way for such code to one day become free. If The qt libraries are indeed licenced under the GPL, then it is not permitted to link them to proprietairt libraries.

As far as I know, Skype is proprietary and it uses QT libraries.

Let's call the cops.



I think that if you read the fine print, you may find that the QT lrbraries are licenced under the LGPL and the other apps are GPL. LGPL does not have the same marketing impact as saying GPL.

Maybe you could check this.

asimon
February 27th, 2005, 01:51 PM
This just demonstates that the people at Trolltek have no idea what free software is.

I doubt this.



The LGPL allows for gpl code to be linked with proprietairy code. In some situations, this is the only method to pave the way for such code to one day become free.

The L in LGPL stands for lesser, and this in the context of liberty. I just suppose you have an other sense when software is free then the fsf.
I doubt that it's common to relisence LGPL code under GPL after some time. I know of no one project which has done this. Thus I don't see that a way to make code more free.



If The qt libraries are indeed licenced under the GPL, then it is not permitted to link them to proprietairt libraries.

As far as I know, Skype is proprietary and it uses QT libraries.

Let's call the cops.


Huh, you know that Qt can be used under more than one license?



I think that if you read the fine print, you may find that the QT lrbraries are licenced under the LGPL and the other apps are GPL. LGPL does not have the same marketing impact as saying GPL.

Maybe you could check this.
You didn't read the lisences or? The free version of Qt comes with LICENSE.GPL and LICENSE.QPL (you can also buy a commercial license). Qt is not and never was licensed under LGPL.

My point was that people call Qt less free than for example GTK+ which is absolutly false in the contect of "Free Software" as defined by the FSF. That was all.

I think many people just don't agree with the FSF and like more free software with free as in "free what to do", so that they can use the work of others to use in/with their propritary stuff without the need to give back.

az
February 27th, 2005, 04:33 PM
Yes, I have read the licences. Here is a quote from the LGPL:

When a program is linked with a library, whether statically or using a shared library, the combination of the two is legally speaking a combined work, a derivative of the original library. The ordinary General Public License therefore permits such linking only if the entire combination fits its criteria of freedom. The Lesser General Public License permits more lax criteria for linking other code with the library.


...
For example, on rare occasions, there may be a special need to encourage the widest possible use of a certain library, so that it becomes a de-facto standard. To achieve this, non-free programs must be allowed to use the library. A more frequent case is that a free library does the same job as widely used non-free libraries. In this case, there is little to gain by limiting the free library to free software only, so we use the Lesser General Public License."




"My point was that people call Qt less free than for example GTK+ which is absolutly false in the contect of "Free Software" as defined by the FSF. That was all"

You cannot have it both ways. Your software is either GPL or not. To release it under more than one licence is againts the principles that the GPL defends.

I am getting tired of repeating myself, here.

asimon
February 27th, 2005, 04:45 PM
Yes, I have read the licences. Here is a quote from the LGPL:

Qt is NOT licensed under LGPL. Wrong license.



You cannot have it both ways. Your software is either GPL or not. To release it under more than one licence is againts the principles that the GPL defends.

A license is GPL or not. Software can be (and is) licensed under multiple lisences and I think it's good that this is possible in our not ideal world. I don't agree with your opinion. And saying Qt is not GPL when it clearly is lisenced under GPL is -- sorry -- in my eyes pure desinformation.

az
February 27th, 2005, 05:36 PM
libqt3c102-mt is dual licenced under the gpl and the qpl. What is prohibited by the GPL (linking with proprietairy apps) is covered by the Qpl.

You tell me. Why don't they just use the lgpl?

QPL:
" 6. You may develop application programs, reusable components and other software items that link with the original or modified versions of the Software. These items, when distributed, are subject to the following requirements:

a. You must ensure that all recipients of machine-executable forms of these items are also able to receive and use the complete machine-readable source code to the items without any charge beyond the costs of data transfer.

b. You must explicitly license all recipients of your items to use and re-distribute original and modified versions of the items in both machine-executable and source code forms. The recipients must be able to do so without any charges whatsoever, and they must be able to re-distribute to anyone they choose.

c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items, then you must supply one. "


So, why can't I get the source sode for skype? Explain this to me.

asimon
February 27th, 2005, 06:25 PM
You tell me. Why don't they just use the lgpl?

I think you use the free version of Qt under GPL or QPL, not a mixture of both. Thus it's not equivalent to LGPL. Neither GPL nor QPL allow you to write propritary commercial software with the free version of Qt. For that you need the commercial license which requires payment for their hard work.



So, why can't I get the source sode for skype? Explain this to me.
I don't know much about Skype. If they use Qt then they have probably a comercial lisence from Toll Tech, thus they don't have to give away their source.

az
February 27th, 2005, 07:27 PM
"which requires payment for their hard work."

I beleive that it is important for enterprises to make money. In fact, I beleive that you can make lots of money from open source software - just not by selling it. Pardon me if I am reading anything into your comment.

"If they use Qt then they have probably a comercial lisence from Toll Tech, thus they don't have to give away their source."

That is true. But the skype binaries can (and do) use the GPL qt libraries. Is this prohibited or not?

This is what I mean by having it both ways.

Again, this demonstrates the differences between Gtk and libqt.
Qt is a commercial product which currently has a free licence. Gtk is a Gnu product which has always been free. Of the two, I think that GTK has a better chance of remaining free.

Ironi
February 28th, 2005, 02:04 AM
That is true. But the skype binaries can (and do) use the GPL qt libraries. Is this prohibited or not?

Good question, since Opera Inc. does the same thing; it offers a shared version of its browser that links dynamically with Qt.



This is what I mean by having it both ways.

Fortunately, this very issue is addressed on TrollTech's site (http://www.trolltech.com/developer/faqs/license_gpl.html#q116).



Again, this demonstrates the differences between Gtk and libqt.
Qt is a commercial product which currently has a free licence. Gtk is a Gnu product which has always been free. Of the two, I think that GTK has a better chance of remaining free.
TrollTech gave some assurances to the KDE project regarding what would happen in certain circumstances. AFAIK, that pretty much eliminated any worries about Qt becoming "less" free... at least for open source use. More info: The KDE Free Qt Foundation (http://www.kde.org/whatiskde/kdefreeqtfoundation.php).

az
February 28th, 2005, 03:29 AM
"Fortunately, this very issue is addressed on TrollTech's site."


Great link. Thanks! Quote:

Why is Qt Open Source Edition not distributed under the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL)?
The LGPL is designed to "permit developers of non-free programs to use free libraries" (quote from the LGPL). In other words, if Qt Open Source Edition were LGPL'd, companies would not have to purchase our commercial editions in order to make commercial/proprietary software, they could just use the Open Source Edition, free of charge. That would mean Trolltech would not get the revenue necessary for improving and extending Qt. Note also that the Free Software Foundation discourages the use of the LGPL"

If this does not conclusively tell you that they are screwed up when it comes to freee and opened source software, I do not know what will. The LGPL is discouraged because it does not protect your freedom. Trolltech's solution is even worse!



"TrollTech gave some assurances to the KDE project regarding what would happen in certain circumstances. AFAIK, that pretty much eliminated any worries about Qt becoming "less" free... at least for open source use. More info: The KDE Free Qt Foundation."

Useless. A bsd licence is useless.

matgorb
February 28th, 2005, 12:19 PM
I see a lot about it, and with no arguments really, so could those who have a real opinion please post here the pros and cons they have of both these desktops.
I will start:
KDE, the first I used, when GNOME was just some kind of project, is now, and actually was now that I remeber, too WinXP like for me, I hated the new them in Win, I hate equally the default KDE look, I don't mind its existence, I just think it is better to have a simplier, slickier look as default, I don't like the Windows border, and the whole desktop just look too crowdy for me. The configuration tools are great though, but maybe a little too great.

Gnome, well this is what the desktop should have been, free software from top to bottom. I like Gnome because it is simple, and yes I think it is on the Mac side, but at leats I'm not lost when I come from Mac OSX (so it might be true, kde is win and gnome/mac). I like nautilus, well the old one, I tried the spatial but it does not just work for me, I tried it for two month, but I'm now back to a simple tree browsing experience. I want one thing in nautilus , the ability to slide a folder in the tree mac os style to have a shortcut in the tree, it is so practical.

For other function coming from KDE i don't really know, because i have not use it enought to realise, but as is Gnome just does the job for me, simply and effectively, so please, what about you, and what do you miss in Gnome?

daniels
February 28th, 2005, 12:45 PM
It really is very much a personal preference thing -- just like colours, backgrounds, desktop layouts, terminal layouts, editors, whatever. You'll get people saying what they like, but what they might like in a desktop, you may hate.

Possibly this is why all the debates seem to get so heated; people don't take well to assertions on subjective matters that run counter to their own thinking.

scoon
February 28th, 2005, 12:49 PM
Hey there,

Good luck with this one. People tend to be either strongly pro KDE or strongly pro GNOME.

To answer you question, I have been using linux since red hat 5.2 I started using gnome back then (v1.4) and just didn't ever stop using it for very long. I have tried kde and it has TONS of eyecandy. It was nice, but very distracting to me. There really isn't anything that GNOME does that I don't like, even spatial. For me, GNOME just fits the way I work.


scoon

r00
February 28th, 2005, 01:12 PM
here's just a few things i noticed :

kde : _more geared toward windows converts 'cuz of it's overall look and feel..
_overly bloated, if you ask me.. and kinda slow..
_it does have a decent web browser (but not as good as firefox)

gnome : _simple and clean.. BeOS fans would like it, methinks.. i know i did :)
_it's really friggin fast.. but it could be that i'm using ubuntu ;)
_honestly, i never tried the web browser for gnome since ubuntu came
wif firefox..

i'm no expert, but i think it really is dependant on the users prefs and where they came from.. as for me, i used to be a huge BeOS fan (and still am).. so gnome does it for me :P

eldrich_rebello
February 28th, 2005, 01:21 PM
I personally find Gnome a lot easier to use as you're not bombarded with 15 applications to accomplish one task.kde is nice to start(( cause it looks nice!)with but then move on to gnome.gnome to ME seems a lot slicker and responsive than KDE.i also don't like being reminded of windows all the time ,especially with KDE mimicking the look n feel.kde has more applications on it's menu which seems nice when you're out to kill time,but when you got a job to do,Gnome wins for me.

hard_i
February 28th, 2005, 01:48 PM
I agree with everyone who has answered so far :)
I like Gnome , because i like clean - minimalistic stuff , and KDE is just too colorful and bloated for my taste.
or like daniels sayd

It really is very much a personal preference thing

ralph_ubuntu
February 28th, 2005, 01:53 PM
To judge from some of the responses so far your experiment has failed once again and the flamewar/fud-slinging has already started.
Some points I'd like to respond to:

1. Kde is similar to Windows
This one always amazes me as my kde has never been similar to windows so I'm starting to wonder, what am I doing wrong? On top of it, nobody so far explained to me why he considers it to be more similar to windows than for example gnome and the only thing I've read so far in this thread is that both the WinXP and kde default themes are ugly (btw. kde3.4 defaults to plastik now). While I agree that hardly establishes that KDE is similar to Windows.

2. KDE is bloated
Another one of my favorites. Please define bloat and how kde is bloated. Mine isn't. Closely related to this seems to be the often heard FUD that there are 15 programs for any given task. Again, I really don't know what you are talking about, please give examples.

3. KDE is slow
No, it isn't. On the contrary, it's more responsive than gnome/gtk in my experience and it has been getting more responsive with every new release lately, so please, stop the fud.

4. KDE is somehow not free software
This hasn't been explicitly stated yet, but citing gnome being free software from top to bottom as one of its advantages somehow seems to imply that this is not the case with KDE. Please, state specifically where KDE is not build on free software from top to bottom. Thanks.

az
February 28th, 2005, 02:06 PM
Gnome has a great beat and you can dance to it.

Nis
February 28th, 2005, 02:14 PM
Since you did ask for someone to address your points I guess I will. :)

1. I agree with you that KDE isn't really all that similar to Explorer. I guess because the panel is at the bottom by default, the file manager is also a browser, and some applications do more than one thing I could see how the comparison can be made. However, I think this just makes KDE more similar to Explorer than GNOME is; both KDE and GNOME are really radically different than Explorer.

2. This one I'll have to disagree with you on. While there aren't 15 different applications that do the same thing default KDE does come with multiple applications for one task (text editors and music/sound programs really). While this is not necessarily a bad thing it does feel like a little too much when some applications appear almost the same. I guess my biggest complaint about KDE (which isn't a bad one really) is that application naming in the menu is awful (at least by default). Some applications go by Music Player (shouldn't there only be one) and when I install Kaffeine it also wants to be known as Musicplayer (notice the lack of space and lowercase 'p'). I know I can change these with the menu editor but I just think these should never come up under the default settings. Also, the number of configurable options under 'Control Center' can be overwhelming, contributing to the 'bloated' feel. But having all those options is really cool if you want them. :)

3. KDE feels much snappier to me too. I can only think that the complaint about bloatedness leads to this complaint about slowness but I really can't see it. In particular Konqueror is like lightening at web browsing. KHTML is really fast and I wish there was a GNOME browser that would use GtkHTML (which is spun off of KHTML); Gecko is just too memory intensive right now.

4. I think the idea of KDE not being free software comes from the fact that Qt used to not be open source. Now it is and applications can be freely written and distributed with it. However, if you want to distribute an application but keep the source closed then you must by a Qt license from Trolltech. I guess this is where people have a problem. However, this is similar to the BSD license in that you can withhold source code if you desire; how come no problems there? I can only speculate that since a big company is making money off of closed software it causes some people to be frightened.

Hope this contributes in a meaningful way to the discussion. :)

ralph_ubuntu
February 28th, 2005, 02:21 PM
Just a short note on point 2:
I always found that this problem was caused not by kde but mostly by distributions that think that it is a good idea to put everything in by default. As to the editor problem, this has been discussed many times, but basically there are two editors, kate and kedit and the only purpose of the latter is that it can be used to input text from right to left, something kate doesn't handle yet. (But again, nobody is forcing me to install kedit if I don't need this feature). Kwrite is just a simpler frontend to kate intended for basic text editing.

kahping
February 28th, 2005, 02:38 PM
oh no! the beginnings of another war of the desktops...

pls could we all just leave it alone? pretty please?

everybody's got their personal taste in things, so let's just let the topic go. if you like KDE, use it. and if you prefer GNOME, just use it.

thank you.

kahping

piedamaro
February 28th, 2005, 03:30 PM
Hey there,

Good luck with this one. People tend to be either strongly pro KDE or strongly pro GNOME.

To answer you question, I have been using linux since red hat 5.2 I started using gnome back then (v1.4) and just didn't ever stop using it for very long. I have tried kde and it has TONS of eyecandy. It was nice, but very distracting to me. There really isn't anything that GNOME does that I don't like, even spatial. For me, GNOME just fits the way I work.


scoon
Wrong. Maybe you mean redhat 7.2.
Redhat 5.2 shipped with an alpha release of gnome, gnome-libs were at version 0.30


oh no! the beginnings of another war of the desktops...

pls could we all just leave it alone? pretty please?

everybody's got their personal taste in things, so let's just let the topic go. if you like KDE, use it. and if you prefer GNOME, just use it.

thank you.

kahping
You say leave this thread alone, but even you couldn't resist to add a bit of your wisdom.

mark
February 28th, 2005, 05:01 PM
I'm actually rather agnostic when it comes to the Great Desktop Wars - however, I do continue to prefer (and use) Gnome. I've tried KDE thourgh too many version to reiterate and, while it is an excellent desktop environment, it's just too bloody busy too suit me. Busy - as in way too many icons, too much "eye candy", too many distractions.

I actually use the default Gnome desktop in Ubuntu - it's "quiet", doesn't distract me or get in the way when I'm trying to do work.

Yukonjack
February 28th, 2005, 05:13 PM
It's all about personal choices that is the gnu/linux way what ever you like. I have been a gnome user since 2.6 before that I found gnome pretty useless but since 2.6 it's getting better with every new release.
When it comes to flame wars I find them very imature and don't get involved in them it's useless. As for kde I decided to check out this little gem Vector linux and I have to say it rocks nice and fast and use kde as default. If you really like kde this one is worth a look.
Vector Linux 5.0 SOHO (http://www.vectorlinux.com/)
They have done to kde what Ubuntu has done to gnome very nice. ;)

asimon
February 28th, 2005, 05:58 PM
If this does not conclusively tell you that they are screwed up when it comes to freee and opened source software, I do not know what will.
I like this solution and think it's very fair, no screwing up in my eyes.



Useless. A bsd licence is useless.

No it's not. It ensures that the free software community can carry on developing Qt. In that unlikely case KDE.org for example could take Qt and relicense it.

jdodson
February 28th, 2005, 06:07 PM
i personally love and use gnome and at times fluxbox. i am glad kde is around though. choice is good and to each his/her own.

mike998
February 28th, 2005, 07:03 PM
I'm actually rather agnostic when it comes to the Great Desktop Wars - however, I do continue to prefer (and use) Gnome. I've tried KDE thourgh too many version to reiterate and, while it is an excellent desktop environment, it's just too bloody busy too suit me. Busy - as in way too many icons, too much "eye candy", too many distractions.

I actually use the default Gnome desktop in Ubuntu - it's "quiet", doesn't distract me or get in the way when I'm trying to do work.

I actually agree with this statement - in it's default installed state, I find KDE to be a little too visually busy to work well with. I have tried KDE, Gnome, XFCE, Fluxbox and others (I want to give ratpoison a go sometime, but I'm not brave enough right now!) and my personal preference is for Gnome. I will try the others from time to time and may switch in the future if one of the other WMs make it worth my while, but for the moment Gnome is for me.

On a similarly related note: I believe that the Kubuntu branch is a bad idea. If you want KDE, you will probably be knowledgeable enough to install it yourself. One of the strengths of ubuntu is that it presents you with Gnome by default and doesn't try to confuse you with other WMs.

I also agree that we should agree to disagree - these threads are as close to religion/politics as you can get!

az
February 28th, 2005, 07:34 PM
"I like this solution and think it's very fair, no screwing up in my eyes."

Are you saying that you do not mind using proprietairy software? There is nothing wrong with that, many people do. If you are interested in only running free software, that is where the problem is.


"No it's not. It ensures that the free software community can carry on developing Qt. In that unlikely case KDE.org for example could take Qt and relicense it."

Right. And if java underwent a fundamental change today, all the free alternatives to it (sablevm, Kaffe, etc..) would just continue along without having to start back at zero?

I already made this point.

t.rei
February 28th, 2005, 07:34 PM
I like gnome - ever since I started using it after loosing my fvwm2rc :P It's just quicker to set up and considering the functionality rather friendly on the ressources.

kde - this is one I used back in the first days of linux. Back then it would never run with an adequate speed on any computer I owned. So I moved on to fvwm2. That one got me to like vim (editing the rc's) and I was really happy with the possibilities (mainly easy configuration of keybindings and being able to do as much as possible without mouse).

Now I configured my gnome so I can do whatever I could back in the fvwm times, just a little more features if I desire them. (nautilus is just freakin awesome for managing image-collection and movies)

kde I have only touched when installing linux for i.e. my mom and my girlfriend. Until gnome2.8 kde was just the more complete and better structured DE. Now they got used to it - so they stick to it.

KDE is great, but gnome's my fav. (like the themability alot - not wanting to learn kde themes right now :P )

az
February 28th, 2005, 07:37 PM
To those who call kde bloated, why do you not just install the kde-base package and add stuff from there?

With debian packaging, it is not all-or-nothing.

asimon
February 28th, 2005, 08:26 PM
Are you saying that you do not mind using proprietairy software? There is nothing wrong with that, many people do. If you are interested in only running free software, that is where the problem is.

I prefer free software but I (have to) use propritary software if it's better suited for a given project. If I only want to use free software then Qt is no obstacle, I am not forced to use the commercial lisence, am I? I can use Qt under a free license and I can develop free software for it. Your problem is that propritary developers cannot use the free edition of Qt but have to buy the professional edition. Something which I think is only fair. But okay, if the sole aim is the biggest user base -- including propritary developers who don't give back -- then LGPL is indeed better suited.


Right. And if java underwent a fundamental change today, all the free alternatives to it (sablevm, Kaffe, etc..) would just continue along without having to start back at zero?

The scenario of The KDE Free Qt Foundation is that Troll Tech doesn't continue development of the Qt Free Edition. The resulting BSD relisencing of the Qt source code will ensure that free software projects like KDE sitll have a free Qt. KDE.org for example would not depend on a closed-source-for-money Qt. Free and non-free Qt would in that case of course diverge with time. The BSD lisence is not useless in this scenario, it's a very good start and a solution to that problem.

jdong
February 28th, 2005, 11:50 PM
Well, right now I'm using KDE.

Everything in GNOME is perfect, except:

1. kioslaves definitely beats gnome-vfs. The ability to open AND save files over any kind of konqueror supported protocol (from ftp:// to pop3://) is unbeatable.

2. Kate. No GNOME editor matches it.

3. KDevelop. Anjuta ain't even close.

landotter
March 1st, 2005, 12:26 AM
I use Gnome for the "quiet" it offers me.

KDE does have some nice features that impress me though:

Integration between Kopete & Addressbook--simple enough, but handy.

Kaudiocreator--an integrated audio ripper and one of the finest available for Linux.

Kppp-the best modem gui tool ever.

K3b--my favourite burning app on any platform.

Koffice--kword and kspread are marvelous for simple tasks, easy to navigate, and can save in OOo format.

Noatun w/ the Hayes playlist is the most discreet and transparent way to listen to tunes on linux.

I'd happily use KDE if I had a laptop that, say, ran better with Suse or Mandrake on it--but as far as the general look and feel of it...ICK. :lol: Too Willy Wonka.

KDE's very impressive from a technological standpoint with its reuse of libraries and whatnot--it runs surprisingly great on old hardware.

I like Gnome better as a DE though. It's calming--and the weather applet kicks butt. :D

wallijonn
March 1st, 2005, 12:54 AM
Ralph,

I also do not want to partake in a desktop war. But I will say that any perceived KDE bloat may not be because of KDE, per. se., but rather because of the distro.

When I install SuSE or Slackware I am given the opportunity to install just about every application under the Sun. So you could end up with Konqueror, Gideon, Mozilla and FireFox for browsers, KDEOffice, ABIWord and OpenOffice for write apps., 3 or 4 editors (Vim, Emacs, gedit, nano, pico, sed, etc.), 2 or 3 graphics programmes, 3 or 4 CD burning software programmes, ... etc. You get the idea.

While you can control it somewhat in SuSE, a newbie is more likely to install everything in Slackware. You are given three choices with RedHat but one may be tempted to install Workstation instead of Desktop or Server instead of Workstation. This could be considered bloat by many. And since KDE has better games, you just know that a lot of people installed them all.

I spent many hours deleting apps and libraries from SuSE whereas I spent many hours adding apps to Ubuntu. The difference is that I picked and chose as I went along, so I had more fun. I don't ever remember changing window themes, mouse pointers, icon themes or window borders with KDE. It came with Crystal Blue and that's basically all I ever used.

I loved KDE, but I outgrew it with Ubuntu.

If Hoary goes and integrates their web browser into the OS like Konqueror is integrated into KDE, chances are that I will never upgrade from Warty. I like my Fire Fox, tyvm, and do not what to change over to another browser. At this time.

For people who really do know KDE, though, KDE is probably faster than GNOME. Chances are your system isn't bloated with every app under the Sun.

I don't worry about such things when I have a P4 3 GHz processor and 2G of memory, though. Heck, it runs pretty darn well on my P1.5 with 512MB of mem. (As do most Linux distros). Yes, I just plainly prefer GNOME over KDE. To each his own. Choice is good. But I refuse to be converted back.

scoon
March 1st, 2005, 01:23 AM
[QUOTE=piedamaro]Wrong. Maybe you mean redhat 7.2.
Redhat 5.2 shipped with an alpha release of gnome, gnome-libs were at version 0.30

Hey there,

Actually, I think that gnome 1.4 was in version 6.0 of redhat.


scoon

CowPie
March 1st, 2005, 02:46 AM
Ralph,

I also do not want to partake in a desktop war. But I will say that any perceived KDE bloat may not be because of KDE, per. se., but rather because of the distro.

When I install SuSE or Slackware I am given the opportunity to install just about every application under the Sun. So you could end up with Konqueror, Gideon, Mozilla and FireFox for browsers, KDEOffice, ABIWord and OpenOffice for write apps., 3 or 4 editors (Vim, Emacs, gedit, nano, pico, sed, etc.), 2 or 3 graphics programmes, 3 or 4 CD burning software programmes, ... etc. You get the idea.

While you can control it somewhat in SuSE, a newbie is more likely to install everything in Slackware. You are given three choices with RedHat but one may be tempted to install Workstation instead of Desktop or Server instead of Workstation. This could be considered bloat by many. And since KDE has better games, you just know that a lot of people installed them all.

I spent many hours deleting apps and libraries from SuSE whereas I spent many hours adding apps to Ubuntu. The difference is that I picked and chose as I went along, so I had more fun. I don't ever remember changing window themes, mouse pointers, icon themes or window borders with KDE. It came with Crystal Blue and that's basically all I ever used.

I loved KDE, but I outgrew it with Ubuntu.

If Hoary goes and integrates their web browser into the OS like Konqueror is integrated into KDE, chances are that I will never upgrade from Warty. I like my Fire Fox, tyvm, and do not what to change over to another browser. At this time.

For people who really do know KDE, though, KDE is probably faster than GNOME. Chances are your system isn't bloated with every app under the Sun.

I don't worry about such things when I have a P4 3 GHz processor and 2G of memory, though. Heck, it runs pretty darn well on my P1.5 with 512MB of mem. (As do most Linux distros). Yes, I just plainly prefer GNOME over KDE. To each his own. Choice is good. But I refuse to be converted back.
Good point. I hated KDE until I tried Xandros, a large part of it due to Konqueror's replacement ;)

az
March 1st, 2005, 03:15 AM
" If I only want to use free software then Qt is no obstacle, I am not forced to use the commercial lisence, am I"

The point is it is the same software. How can it be both free and commercial at the same time? You either feel software should be free and you will fight to keep it free (GPL) or you do not (non-free) You cannot say that you beleive in both.

Which brings me to your other point. If Trollteck thought that it was in it's advantage to close off Qt, do you actually think that the free (forked) version would be able to compete with the proprietairy version? Don't you think that the proprietairy version would have all the features that make it indispensable. It would not be cloesed off otherwise. The developers of the now-BSD-licenced Qt libraries would be left in the dust holding sheets of obsolete source code.

This is my opinion based on the fact that Trolltech cannot sustain the Open Source stance that they presently have. They either go all the way or their word is not worth bupkus.

Chris Ferrell
March 1st, 2005, 03:44 AM
I guess there's some KDE people that would rather bury their heads in the sand and act like the QT license isn't an issue, when it is.

There's reasons why the major players are choosing Gnome over KDE, and yes, the more liberal gtk+ license is one of them.

poofyhairguy
March 1st, 2005, 04:22 AM
For people who really do know KDE, though, KDE is probably faster than GNOME.

Is this because you can set the KDE settings lower? I know that KDE at MEPIS settings (which I think is all the way up or near it) cripples my poor 128mb laptop. But when I apt-get the universe KDE and tell it to use less eye candy, it runs faster than Gnome

TravisNewman
March 1st, 2005, 04:55 AM
To judge from some of the responses so far your experiment has failed once again and the flamewar/fud-slinging has already started.
Some points I'd like to respond to:

1. Kde is similar to Windows
This one always amazes me as my kde has never been similar to windows so I'm starting to wonder, what am I doing wrong? On top of it, nobody so far explained to me why he considers it to be more similar to windows than for example gnome and the only thing I've read so far in this thread is that both the WinXP and kde default themes are ugly (btw. kde3.4 defaults to plastik now). While I agree that hardly establishes that KDE is similar to Windows.

It FEELS similar to me at times, but I don't think it looks similar. They ARE both ugly, but I'm glad it's defaulting to Plastik now.



2. KDE is bloated
Another one of my favorites. Please define bloat and how kde is bloated. Mine isn't. Closely related to this seems to be the often heard FUD that there are 15 programs for any given task. Again, I really don't know what you are talking about, please give examples.
KDE IS bloated on many distributions (Ubuntu included) because the freakin' barcode reader and ham radio tools get installed. How many people really need those? BUT if you install KDE-base instead of the full KDE meta-package it's nowhere near as bloated. The interfaces, to me, are very bloated just because they're so flashy and showy. This is NOT FUD. It's an opinion, and there are a buttload of programs for some tasks, but its more that there are programs for MANY obscure tasks.



3. KDE is slow
No, it isn't. On the contrary, it's more responsive than gnome/gtk in my experience and it has been getting more responsive with every new release lately, so please, stop the fud.

Yes, yes it is. Much slower than Gnome for me. Not FUD again.



4. KDE is somehow not free software
This hasn't been explicitly stated yet, but citing gnome being free software from top to bottom as one of its advantages somehow seems to imply that this is not the case with KDE. Please, state specifically where KDE is not build on free software from top to bottom. Thanks.
The QT licensing is a bit wishy-washy, and though it doesn't appear that they plan on doing this any time soon, but they could go proprietary again at any time. Gnome/GTK can't.

In conclusion, I agree with about half your points. I don't really LOVE KDE or anything, but I used to hate it and now sometimes I actually CHOOSE to use it.

But please, please, please don't accuse people of spreading FUD unless they're spreading FUD. In the open source/free software community, accusing someone of this is a big insult, and I'm not trying to be mean, but by falsely accusing people of spreading FUD, you are kinda doing it yourself.

TravisNewman
March 1st, 2005, 04:56 AM
Good point. I hated KDE until I tried Xandros, a large part of it due to Konqueror's replacement ;)
What replacement was that? Is it Free (as in freedom)? Because I DESPISE Konqueror.

TravisNewman
March 1st, 2005, 05:12 AM
Seriously, I'm with azz on this one (glad you brought back Shatner ;))

It's a messy situation, and the fact that there's no GPL means that they could change stances at any time. Why would they license the software in this way if they didn't have at least an inkling of a plan for this?

Ironi
March 1st, 2005, 06:54 AM
[KDE] FEELS similar [to Windows] to me at times, but I don't think it looks similar.

That's very subjective. FWIW, I think that KDE does feel a bit like Windows as well -- but that's because it borrows some design elements from Windows (among others). Of course, GNOME also borrows design ideas from others, and it too feels rather similar to Windows (and OS X) albeit dumbed-down, especially with the registry... er, I mean gconf.



They ARE both ugly, but I'm glad it's defaulting to Plastik now.

Again, a subjective matter. Personally, I don't care whether or not an interface or app is "ugly" as long as it does what I need it to do and has the features that I need. I don't know about GNOME advocates, but "sexy" applications and interfaces just don't ... erm, excite me (besides, I have other stuff for that ;)).



KDE IS bloated on many distributions (Ubuntu included) because the freakin' barcode reader and ham radio tools get installed.

That appears to be a problem with the metapackages, not something intrinsic to KDE.



The interfaces, to me, are very bloated just because they're so flashy and showy.

Yeah, that's what you get when the apps have features that people might use. Of course, many of the extras can be disabled or hidden.



there are a buttload of programs for some tasks, but its more that there are programs for MANY obscure tasks.

Taken a look at /usr/bin and /usr/sbin lately? No? :)



[KDE is much] slower than Gnome for me. Not FUD again.

KDE seems fast enough for me. In fact, I've seen people claim that KDE is faster than GNOME. YMMV, I guess.



The QT licensing is a bit wishy-washy, and though it doesn't appear that they plan on doing this any time soon, but they could go proprietary again at any time. Gnome/GTK can't.

How is it "wishy-washy?" The open source edition of Qt has been released under the GPL since September 2000 (http://www.trolltech.com/newsroom/announcements/00000043.html). Even if TrollTech were to hypothetically become extremely hostile to the open source community (and the KDE project didn't have written assurances (http://www.kde.org/whatiskde/kdefreeqtfoundation.php)), we still have the current versions of Qt that were released under the GPL. Meaning that anyone can fork it and continue development, as long as they abide by the rules of the full GPL. Were that to happen, we'd have a situation very similar to the current one with... wait for it... MONO (except that there is no ... patent problem ... surrounding Qt as there may be with Mono).

BTW, let's not get into the legal uncertanties surrounding Mono and Miguel's plans to base GNOME around it, eh? After all, picking on KDE and Qt is so much easier than facing the harsh realities surrounding something that currently exists in its current state only because of Microsoft's failure to seriously oppose it... and remember who is said to be pushing very hard behind the scenes for software patents in the EU. How's that for FUD? ;)

Ironi
March 1st, 2005, 06:56 AM
It's a messy situation, and the fact that there's no GPL means that they could change stances at any time. Why would they license the software in this way if they didn't have at least an inkling of a plan for this?
You're making the very same claim in two different threads. :rolleyes: As I pointed out in that other thread (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=81210#post81210), you're wrong as well. Perhaps if you didn't put forth such misinformed assertions, you wouldn't be accused of spreading FUD.

ralph_ubuntu
March 1st, 2005, 10:40 AM
But the licensing issue is FUD:
http://kdemyths.urbanlizard.com/viewMyth.php?mythID=13

asimon
March 1st, 2005, 10:47 AM
" If I only want to use free software then Qt is no obstacle, I am not forced to use the commercial lisence, am I"

The point is it is the same software. How can it be both free and commercial at the same time?

It's because of the law. I know of no land with copyright laws where a software can only be lisenced under one license only.



You either feel software should be free and you will fight to keep it free (GPL) or you do not (non-free) You cannot say that you beleive in both.

Qt is free and will stay free, that's the essence of the Foundation, no need to fight. And on top of that for our propritary friends it's also available with a commercial lisence. One could see it as a additional feature.
This black&white view is very common under free software people but a lot of developers do propritary stuff in their job and contribute to free software projects in their spare time. There are not only fanatics, there are people who think that there is a place for both free and propritary software. But know I see the thorn in your side, you wan't all software free (that is okay), thus Qt is not good enough for you because it's also available under commercial lisence.



Which brings me to your other point. If Trollteck thought that it was in it's advantage to close off Qt, do you actually think that the free (forked) version would be able to compete with the proprietairy version? Don't you think that the proprietairy version would have all the features that make it indispensable. It would not be cloesed off otherwise. The developers of the now-BSD-licenced Qt libraries would be left in the dust holding sheets of obsolete source code.

The advantage is that the free Qt would be free and projects like KDE.org would use it no matter what new features the closed version would get. But this is a completly other discussion. There are a lot of examples where propritary software exists which is much better than the respective free software but still people use the free one because it's free and good enough for them (Visual Studio.NET vs. MonoDevelop, Photoshop vs. Gimp, etc.).



This is my opinion based on the fact that Trolltech cannot sustain the Open Source stance that they presently have. They either go all the way or their word is not worth bupkus.

I understand, there are people who want all propritary software die. They want that all software is free. Qt with it's multiple lisences does not fit into their view. But I find it hypocritical that those people often defend the LGPL which allows propritary software to be developed on top of free software without the requirement that the propritary software developer gives anything back.

jsgotangco
March 1st, 2005, 10:48 AM
There was a time when KDE was superior to everything. But times have changed and I have the belief that GNOME matured much faster than KDE as a dekstop environment and a state of mind. KDE looks too noisy for me now.

az
March 1st, 2005, 12:42 PM
"But the licensing issue is FUD:"
There is another thread decribing why you are wrong.

" KDE seems fast enough for me. In fact, I've seen people claim that KDE is faster than GNOME. YMMV, I guess."

Kde can be faster if you disable antialiased fonts and have a ton of memory. It sucks up even more memory if you run non-Qt. non-kde apps on top of that.


"Meaning that anyone can fork it and continue development, as long as they abide by the rules of the full GPL. Were that to happen, we'd have a situation very similar to the current one with... wait for it... MONO (except that there is no ... patent problem ... surrounding Qt as there may be with Mono).

BTW, let's not get into the legal uncertanties surrounding Mono and Miguel's plans to base GNOME around it, eh? After all, picking on KDE and Qt is so much easier than facing the harsh realities surrounding something that currently exists in its current state only because of Microsoft's failure to seriously oppose it... and remember who is said to be pushing very hard behind the scenes for software patents in the EU. How's that for FUD? "

There are fundamental differences in your arguments. Mono is free software from the ground up. The only thing that threatens it is patents. That is not Gnome, Mono or Novell's fault. No one is ever planning on selling mono!
The business model for mono is one that (so far, to me) will work. Make free software and let people use it. Make tons of money by supporting it.

Trolltech want to sell free software. If you think that is is a right to sell software, fine. Do not go around calling yourself a supporter of the GPL and an open-source company. That is the difference.

ralph_ubuntu
March 1st, 2005, 12:47 PM
Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU project is that you should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you should charge as little as possible -- just enough to cover the cost.
Actually we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can. If this seems surprising to you, please read on.
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/selling.html/view?searchterm=selling%20software

And would you be so kind to at least link to the thread that shows that I'm wrong?
Thanks in advance.

az
March 1st, 2005, 12:50 PM
"It's because of the law. I know of no land with copyright laws where a software can only be lisenced under one license only."

Patents and spanking are legal, too.

"But know I see the thorn in your side, you wan't all software free (that is okay), thus Qt is not good enough for you because it's also available under commercial lisence."

That is correct. Sometimes, you need to be either black or white, since if you do not stand up for your rights, you lose them. What would prevent an eventual linux distribution to surpass Microsoft in popularity and then become proprietairy?

"There are a lot of examples where propritary software exists which is much better than the respective free software but still people use the free one because it's free and good enough for them (Visual Studio.NET vs. MonoDevelop, Photoshop vs. Gimp, etc.)."

Not quite a good example. You would have to compare the open version of one app with it's proprietairy version. You tend to get less support from a free version when the exact save software has a supported proprietairy version which satisfies everybody's need.

asimon
March 1st, 2005, 01:31 PM
I perfer KDE because I am more productive with it then I am with Gnome. For example I configured the KDE apps to use the keyboard shortcuts I want and am quite fast with them. With Gnome it would cost me some time to learn new shortcuts (configuration imposible) and get used to them and many things don't have keyboard shortcuts under Gnome at all.

Another thing I like is that for example KDE's file and printing dialogs are more powerful than the Gnome ones. I actually use those additional features from time to time. A week ago I had to work on a Gnome desktop. I wanted to print out a PDF document 100 times. A double click later gpdf started and to my amazement this viewer had no option to print a document multiple times. Or take Gnome's session management. Gnome fails to restore non-Gnome apps like Firefox or Thunderbird (I know it's by design). Thunderbird is never restored, Firefox never on the right virtual desktop. Under KDE it just works. It's these small things I miss with Gnome.

I absolutly dig KDE's configurability because it gives me more power to configure everything the way I like and thus improve it's usability for me.

And as a developer it's just more fun for me to work with Qt and C++ then with C and GTK+ (but I like C#/GTK#).

TravisNewman
March 1st, 2005, 02:00 PM
My point about the licensing is that they could pull their gpl'ed version and completely switch over to the one that requires licensing. And that's not FUD.

TravisNewman
March 1st, 2005, 02:02 PM
I'm referring to the version that requires licensing. They could pull the gpl version at any time and require licensing to use qt at all. That's not FUD.

asimon
March 1st, 2005, 02:09 PM
They could pull the gpl version at any time and require licensing to use qt at all. That's not FUD.
In that case we would have a BSD-licensed Qt.

ralph_ubuntu
March 1st, 2005, 02:13 PM
My point about the licensing is that they could pull their gpl'ed version and completely switch over to the one that requires licensing. And that's not FUD.
And your point is wrong, as you could have easily found out if you had actually read the link I provided.

So it is FUD, FUD and nothing but FUD.

MedusaErodeus
March 1st, 2005, 02:44 PM
Ever since I started my Linux experience I've used KDE... That was what I liked and pretty much hated GNOME... That was up until Ubuntu and I crossed paths, now I'm all about GNOME.

The one thing I'm particular about KDE and I don't know if anybody else has though about it is the amount of applications that seem to come from the KDE side!! It seems that if there has to be an app to accomplish some task KDE has it...

My 2/100

ralph_ubuntu
March 1st, 2005, 03:12 PM
I'm always asking myself if I should be amused or simply disgusted by these kind of discussion. Being amused is probably the better option, as the "arguments" of our beloved anti-kde trolls are simply to dumb to be really disgusted.
But let's look at what they are trying to tell us.

Qt is not free software
This of course might come as a surprise to anyone who firmly believes that 1+1=2 in most instances, as Qt is licensed under the GPL and therefor free software.
But our friends somehow want us to believe that 1+1=286 when it comes to Qt and kde. Now how are they trying to achieve such a feet?

Simple, FUD and insults are the answer.
First of all they claim that the licensing situation of Qt is somehow murky, which of course it isn't as Qt is licensed under the GPL.

Ah, you hear them say, but Trolltech could change that if they want to.
Ah, but that holds true for any software under the GPL, as the author is of course free to change the license. But hold on, that is true for almost any software under the GPL, except for Qt, as Qt will always be licensed under a GPL compatible license:
http://kdemyths.urbanlizard.com/viewMyth.php?mythID=13

But, but, Qt isn't really free software because it is not only licensed under the GPL but also under a commercial closed source license.
It is of course true that Qt is also licensed under a closed source license, however that doesn't change the fact that it is also licensed under the GPL and therefor free software.
If we'd apply the same "logic" our beloved anti-kde trolls use to, say, cars, we'd end up stating that a red Ferrari isn't really a red Ferrari, as there are also yellow Ferraris. Sounds incredibly dumb? That's because it is.

But wait, all this doesn't stop our friends.
Now you might ask, what possibly could they resort to next after totally embarrassing themselves so far?
They use what I like to call the holier-than-thou approach.
Now, what on earth is this?
As Qt is not free software (of course it is, you and I know that, but that doesn't stop them from pretending it isn't) all the people that use kde and of course all the open source developers that devote their time and knowledge to kde don't care about freedom.
Now this is of course not only wrong, as again, Qt is free software, but also an insult to all kde users and developers.

But it even gets better.
They, they proclaim, do care about freedom and therefor use Gnome/Gtk+. Now there is of course nothing wrong with using Gnome or prefering it over kde, however claiming that ones love of freedom is best expressed by using something that is licensed under the L(esser)GPL instead of something that is licensed under the GPL is ridiculous, to say the least.

So where does that leave us, shouldn't we just simply ignore those obvious trolls and FUD slingers and be done with it.
Granted, this solution really sounds tempting, but on the other hand, if you care about free software and especially if you have respect for the great work open source developers do simply letting all this FUD and insults go unanswered isn't an option.

Slapdash
March 1st, 2005, 03:56 PM
Read this (http://cbbrowne.com/info/qtcontroversy.html)

asimon
March 1st, 2005, 04:10 PM
Read this (http://cbbrowne.com/info/qtcontroversy.html)

My favourite is


My lack of esteem for KDE comes from the consideration that it seems primarily dedicated to providing a "pretty GUI;" in contrast, GNOME treats this as secondary to the issue of exposing powerful interface tools such as CORBA and scripting tools like Guile.

az
March 1st, 2005, 04:14 PM
"And your point is wrong, as you could have easily found out if you had actually read the link I provided.

So it is FUD, FUD and nothing but FUD."

Your link has been read. It is rubbish.

The assurances by QT do not provide protection for the freedom you get with the GPL.

az
March 1st, 2005, 04:31 PM
"I'm always asking myself if I should be amused or simply disgusted by these kind of discussion. Being amused is probably the better option, as the "arguments" of our beloved anti-kde trolls are simply to dumb to be really disgusted.
But let's look at what they are trying to tell us."

You are being pompous.


"Qt is not free software
This of course might come as a surprise to anyone who firmly believes that 1+1=2 in most instances, as Qt is licensed under the GPL and therefor free software.
But our friends somehow want us to believe that 1+1=286 when it comes to Qt and kde. Now how are they trying to achieve such a feet?"

As I have said. Qt is a commercial library which is _currently_ under a free licence.


"Simple, FUD and insults are the answer.
First of all they claim that the licensing situation of Qt is somehow murky, which of course it isn't as Qt is licensed under the GPL."

It is dual licenced. It is like saying you beleive that all people are equal except for those who are black. You can't have it both ways.


"Ah, you hear them say, but Trolltech could change that if they want to.
Ah, but that holds true for any software under the GPL, as the author is of course free to change the license. But hold on, that is true for almost any software under the GPL, except for Qt, as Qt will always be licensed under a GPL compatible license:
http://kdemyths.urbanlizard.com/viewMyth.php?mythID=13"

A bsd licence is not the same as the GPL. It does not protect your freedom. The point is that for the authors to change the licence, they would have to hold a great deal of control over the development. If ninety percent of the developers of a project decide they want to close it off, you will be left standing there with pages of obsolete BSD-Free source code while the project continues on without you. You are not really protected by licencing and forking.

You are protected by a company who's business strategy is to ensure that free software will remain free. If the company that holds 90 percent of the developers for a project positions themselves to make money off free software by supporting it, you can be a lot more sure that it will remain free than a company who finds it profitable "for now" to mention the word GPL without really understanding what it stands for.


"But, but, Qt isn't really free software because it is not only licensed under the GPL but also under a commercial closed source license.
It is of course true that Qt is also licensed under a closed source license, however that doesn't change the fact that it is also licensed under the GPL and therefor free software.
If we'd apply the same "logic" our beloved anti-kde trolls use to, say, cars, we'd end up stating that a red Ferrari isn't really a red Ferrari, as there are also yellow Ferraris. Sounds incredibly dumb? That's because it is."

How about racism. Can you be half racist? That is a better analagy.


"But wait, all this doesn't stop our friends.
Now you might ask, what possibly could they resort to next after totally embarrassing themselves so far?
They use what I like to call the holier-than-thou approach.
Now, what on earth is this?
As Qt is not free software (of course it is, you and I know that, but that doesn't stop them from pretending it isn't) all the people that use kde and of course all the open source developers that devote their time and knowledge to kde don't care about freedom.
Now this is of course not only wrong, as again, Qt is free software, but also an insult to all kde users and developers."

I do not feel embarrased.


"But it even gets better.
They, they proclaim, do care about freedom and therefor use Gnome/Gtk+. Now there is of course nothing wrong with using Gnome or prefering it over kde, however claiming that ones love of freedom is best expressed by using something that is licensed under the L(esser)GPL instead of something that is licensed under the GPL is ridiculous, to say the least."

In this case, the LGPL would mean more freedom than the Qt multiple licencing scheme.


"So where does that leave us, shouldn't we just simply ignore those obvious trolls and FUD slingers and be done with it.
Granted, this solution really sounds tempting, but on the other hand, if you care about free software and especially if you have respect for the great work open source developers do simply letting all this FUD and insults go unanswered isn't an option."

It must be really easy for you to insult people by calling them trolls and saying the word FUD. Please stop. Just address the issue like an adult.

ralph_ubuntu
March 1st, 2005, 04:33 PM
"And your point is wrong, as you could have easily found out if you had actually read the link I provided.

So it is FUD, FUD and nothing but FUD."

Your link has been read. It is rubbish.

The assurances by QT do not provide protection for the freedom you get with the GPL.


Facts
All current and future versions of Qt are guaranteed to be released as Free software.
The KDE Free Qt Foundation was created specifically to ensure this. The contract agreed to by Trolltech states that all present and future development of Qt must be released as Free software. If Qt development were to cease altogether Qt would be placed under a BSD style license.

So this is rubish? Why? Cause you don't have any argument left? Or because the bsd style license just provides the protection for freedom you get with, say, the LGPL?

az
March 1st, 2005, 04:34 PM
Read this (http://cbbrowne.com/info/qtcontroversy.html)


Nothing new here. This has nothing to do withmy opinon.

Slapdash
March 1st, 2005, 04:40 PM
Yeah I didnt target it at your opinion just threw it in there generally so people can get some info at hand ;)

ralph_ubuntu
March 1st, 2005, 04:55 PM
"Qt is not free software
This of course might come as a surprise to anyone who firmly believes that 1+1=2 in most instances, as Qt is licensed under the GPL and therefor free software.
But our friends somehow want us to believe that 1+1=286 when it comes to Qt and kde. Now how are they trying to achieve such a feet?"

As I have said. Qt is a commercial library which is _currently_ under a free licence.

Yep, you tend to repeat your FUD, so yes, you've said it. However, just because you said it doesn't make it any truer.




"Simple, FUD and insults are the answer.
First of all they claim that the licensing situation of Qt is somehow murky, which of course it isn't as Qt is licensed under the GPL."

It is dual licenced. It is like saying you beleive that all people are equal except for those who are black. You can't have it both ways.

Wow, bringing racism into play doesn't really hide your lack of an argument. Anyway:
Qt licensed under the GPL == free software
Qt licensed under a closed source license != free software
That shouldn't be too hard to understand.



A bsd licence is not the same as the GPL. It does not protect your freedom. The point is that for the authors to change the licence, they would have to hold a great deal of control over the development. If ninety percent of the developers of a project decide they want to close it off, you will be left standing there with pages of obsolete BSD-Free source code while the project continues on without you. You are not really protected by licencing and forking.

You are protected by a company who's business strategy is to ensure that free software will remain free. If the company that holds 90 percent of the developers for a project positions themselves to make money off free software by supporting it, you can be a lot more sure that it will remain free than a company who finds it profitable "for now" to mention the word GPL without really understanding what it stands for.

I'm well aware of the difference between a bsd license and the GPL. However, accusing me of not being aware of it is a nice distraction to not answering my point. So again, your claim that the author could change the license away from the GPL holds true to any software under the GPL. But with Qt you at least get the assurance that it will always be available under a free software license, no matter what, even if Trolltech for some reason decided to turn against free software. So please answer my point the next time around.
P.S.: For someone who claims that selling GPL software is against the spirit of free software though the FSF specifically disagree with you there lecturing others about free software is really embarassing.



"But, but, Qt isn't really free software because it is not only licensed under the GPL but also under a commercial closed source license.
It is of course true that Qt is also licensed under a closed source license, however that doesn't change the fact that it is also licensed under the GPL and therefor free software.
If we'd apply the same "logic" our beloved anti-kde trolls use to, say, cars, we'd end up stating that a red Ferrari isn't really a red Ferrari, as there are also yellow Ferraris. Sounds incredibly dumb? That's because it is."

How about racism. Can you be half racist? That is a better analagy.

How is this a better analogy. Please provide some kind of argument the next time around. Thanks in advance.



"But wait, all this doesn't stop our friends.
Now you might ask, what possibly could they resort to next after totally embarrassing themselves so far?
They use what I like to call the holier-than-thou approach.
Now, what on earth is this?
As Qt is not free software (of course it is, you and I know that, but that doesn't stop them from pretending it isn't) all the people that use kde and of course all the open source developers that devote their time and knowledge to kde don't care about freedom.
Now this is of course not only wrong, as again, Qt is free software, but also an insult to all kde users and developers."

I do not feel embarrased.

But you should



"But it even gets better.
They, they proclaim, do care about freedom and therefor use Gnome/Gtk+. Now there is of course nothing wrong with using Gnome or prefering it over kde, however claiming that ones love of freedom is best expressed by using something that is licensed under the L(esser)GPL instead of something that is licensed under the GPL is ridiculous, to say the least."

In this case, the LGPL would mean more freedom than the Qt multiple licencing scheme.

You again forgot to provide even the tiniest argument for your point.



"So where does that leave us, shouldn't we just simply ignore those obvious trolls and FUD slingers and be done with it.
Granted, this solution really sounds tempting, but on the other hand, if you care about free software and especially if you have respect for the great work open source developers do simply letting all this FUD and insults go unanswered isn't an option."

It must be really easy for you to insult people by calling them trolls and saying the word FUD. Please stop. Just address the issue like an adult.
You might have a point if all I did was call you a troll, however I explained in great detail why I think this word is justified and why I think you are spreading FUD. Unfortunately, you chose to largely ignore all my arguments, not that it surprises me though.

asimon
March 1st, 2005, 04:59 PM
The assurances by QT do not provide protection for the freedom you get with the GPL.

Did you forgot, it's already under GPL and has all the freedom protection of the GPL already. Somehow we move in a circle here.

jeffsmith8
March 1st, 2005, 05:05 PM
sorry I haven;t read this whole thread but my eyes are bleary, its 2.30am and I've just finished configuring my new Ubuntu setup (very nice distro BTW)

I have, however, been following the KDE/GNOME thing for a while when considering which distro to try out mainly because I really like KDE 3.3 and really can't stand GNOME <2.6

But the Ubuntu experience so far has me warming to GNOME 2.8, I like the menu setup and it all seems to hang together a bit better than it used to.

**Nautilus, however, I don't think I'll ever warm too. I just find it so clunky not being able to view the file trees like you can in Konquerer, Xfe, or (gulp!) win explorer**

Overall though GNOME 2.8 is nice and simple. I find it provides a different sort of satisfaction to KDE, in that in GNOME I feel like the application at hand is the focus- all I want to do is quickly start up an app. and zip around.

In KDE I get to gaze at the desktop and get some personal satisfaction at the range of configurations I've customised. The emphasis is less on the immediate program and more on how it also fits into the whole desktop itself. I get a buzz out of playing around with the customisations and getting all the apps and window boxes to appear congruent with the complete interface. So when I boot into KDE I always kind of adopt a satisfied stare for the first few moments......

Enlightenment is kind of like that but so much more fiddly to wrap your head around.

Xfce is....well I don't know what to make of it yet.....

If GNOME had the configurability of KDE....Or KDE had the streamlined handling of GNOME....wouldn't that be a nice Window Manager? :-D

P.S: But what I don't understand is why it is a problem. Are there actually significant disadvantages to just installing KDE, or enlightenment, or Xfce, or whatever, and using that GUI instead of GNOME? How fundamentally does this "streamlining" of Ubuntu and Gnome effect the alternative use of KDE? Is it some coding thing or are the GUI menu defaults the only sore point? :-s

az
March 1st, 2005, 05:28 PM
"Did you forgot, it's already under GPL and has all the freedom protection of the GPL already. Somehow we move in a circle here."


The point is that Trolltech do not beleive in the GPL. If they did. they would not sell free software, nor would they have multiple licences for the software.

I am not going to continue to argue the point in two threads. Please refer to the kde is a sore issue thread. Actually, just read that thread. I think I made my point two or three times over, there.

asimon
March 1st, 2005, 05:42 PM
The point is that Trolltech do not beleive in the GPL. If they did. they would not sell free software, nor would they have multiple licences for the software.

:roll: They believe in GPL otherwise they would not use it.

I think I have nothing to reply to these arguments. Qt is free and stays free. If that's not enough for someone well what else to say? And repeating doen't change anything, LGPL is less FSF-free than GPL.

jdodson
March 1st, 2005, 05:43 PM
The point is that Trolltech do not beleive in the GPL. If they did. they would not sell free software, nor would they have multiple licences for the software.

i remember azz and i getting into a discussion about this a few months back. i have come to agree with azz in part since then. but then again some really great products are dual licensed, mysql(GPL) and openoffice(LGPL) being a few. basicially as i see it, trolltech could be dual licensing for a few reasons. #1 could be that they want free developer time for the GPL product to add to the pay product or #2 they think dual licenses are the best way to make money. both are pretty good reasons to dual license, but i don't think dual licenses are a good idea at all. RMS believes KDE to be free, but will it always be free? who really knows. personally i think it will be, but people can hold on to thier opinions. if it turns out that azz is correct in that KDE might be non-free then he will make us all eat our words:) anyways there is a GPL branch of QT, i guess we can all view that as we want, i am sure we all know the stipulations of the GPL well enough. i am glad there is a kde out there and for the time being it is considered free by many including myself. however i don't use it for a few reasons, one being the dual licensing thing, the other is that i just like gnome better.

ralph_ubuntu
March 1st, 2005, 05:54 PM
i remember azz and i getting into a discussion about this a few months back. i have come to agree with azz in part since then. but then again some really great products are dual licensed, mysql(GPL) and openoffice(LGPL) being a few. basicially as i see it, trolltech could be dual licensing for a few reasons. #1 could be that they want free developer time for the GPL product to add to the pay product or #2 they think dual licenses are the best way to make money. both are pretty good reasons to dual license, but i don't think dual licenses are a good idea at all. RMS believes KDE to be free, but will it always be free? who really knows. personally i think it will be, but people can hold on to thier opinions. if it turns out that azz is correct in that KDE might be non-free then he will make us all eat our words:) anyways there is a GPL branch of QT, i guess we can all view that as we want, i am sure we all know the stipulations of the GPL well enough. i am glad there is a kde out there and for the time being it is considered free by many including myself. however i don't use it for a few reasons, one being the dual licensing thing, the other is that i just like gnome better.
http://kdemyths.urbanlizard.com/viewMyth.php?mythID=13
http://www.kde.org/whatiskde/kdefreeqtfoundation.php

This is getting annoying. :(

asimon
March 1st, 2005, 05:58 PM
but will it always be free? who really knows. personally i think it will be, but people can hold on to thier opinions.

Some people seem to have a real problem to accept the existance of the legally binding agreement between Troll Tech and the KDE Free Qt Foundation. The chance that the Qt Free Edition become closed is not bigger as the chance that GTK+ become propritary.

jdodson
March 1st, 2005, 06:00 PM
http://kdemyths.urbanlizard.com/viewMyth.php?mythID=13
http://www.kde.org/whatiskde/kdefreeqtfoundation.php

This is getting annoying. :(

i apoligize that i have not scoured the kde site for information. i was pulling information from a discussion azz and i had months ago. i am sorry if my misinformation annoys you. my bad, i will pray to the GNU gods as pennance :-D

i respect that kde "will always be free." but the dual licensing still is lame. anyways, rock on kde!!!! and please, don't stop using it on my account.

jdodson
March 1st, 2005, 06:06 PM
Some people seem to have a real problem to accept the existance of the legally binding agreement between Troll Tech and the KDE Free Qt Foundation. The chance that the Qt Free Edition become closed is not bigger as the chance that GTK+ become propritary.

i really don't, i just did not know that. thanks for the headsup.

ralph_ubuntu
March 1st, 2005, 06:08 PM
i apoligize that i have not scoured the kde site for information. i was pulling information from a discussion azz and i had months ago. i am sorry if my misinformation annoys you. my bad, i will pray to the GNU gods as pennance :-D

Let's just hope that he will forgive you your sins:
http://gallery.zoommagazine.nl/image.php?id=2555&type=full
:-D



i respect that kde "will always be free." but the dual licensing still is lame.
Though I would also like to see no none-free software I fail to see why in the current situation a company making money from people who want to make closed source software and putting that money into a technology that is free is worse than licensing something under the lgpl.

jdodson
March 1st, 2005, 06:12 PM
Though I would also like to see no none-free software I fail to see why in the current situation a company making money from people who want to make closed source software and putting that money into a technology that is free is worse than licensing something under the lgpl.

i never said it was worse, i said i did not like it :D i would rather people release under the GPL though, but the LGPL is fine. i use openoffice so i don't really care that much. i would just people rather use the GPL. then again i play dvds on my ubuntu machine, so i am a pretty bad GNU person, may stallman forgive me.

az
March 1st, 2005, 06:25 PM
http://kdemyths.urbanlizard.com/viewMyth.php?mythID=13
http://www.kde.org/whatiskde/kdefreeqtfoundation.php

This is getting annoying. :(


It is. The links only boil down to the assurance that "you will always be able to fork" Big deal. I can do that with the current GPL versino of the libraries. It does not offer any more protection. In fact, the very reason why they feel they have to go through this excercise is proof that this is a real issue.

Forking is bad.

Forking is making the best out of a bad situation.

I just realise that I am on the thread that I wanted to avoid. Please refer to the kde is a sore issue thread.
The topic is the same, there just may be more swearing in the future, there...

ralph_ubuntu
March 1st, 2005, 06:33 PM
It is. The links only boil down to the assurance that "you will always be able to fork" Big deal. I can do that with the current GPL versino of the libraries. It does not offer any more protection. In fact, the very reason why they feel they have to go through this excercise is proof that this is a real issue.

Forking is bad.

Forking is making the best out of a bad situation.

I just realise that I am on the thread that I wanted to avoid. Please refer to the kde is a sore issue thread.
The topic is the same, there just may be more swearing in the future, there...
Nope, it assures that also all future versions of Qt will be free software. Read again. To say that this doesn't offer any more protection is just wrong.

And if you concede that even the current version always allows for forking as it is under the GPL, what is your point about Qt turning non-free again?

jdodson
March 1st, 2005, 06:37 PM
Forking is bad.

Forking is making the best out of a bad situation.


in some situations i might agree, however. xorg forking from xfree was a good thing, right? i mean now we have split developers, but xorg is still GPL compatible, at least thats what i understand the split was about.

ubuntu is a "sort of" fork of debian. however the difference is they push back all changes and updates, fixes, etc to debian. however, we come from debian, though we are not pure debian. the big differences being, release cycle, focus on bleeding edge, etc.

az
March 1st, 2005, 07:00 PM
"Nope, it assures that also all future versions of Qt will be free software. Read again. To say that this doesn't offer any more protection is just wrong.

And if you concede that even the current version always allows for forking as it is under the GPL, what is your point about Qt turning non-free again?"

Let's say (again) that Trolltech develops mindblowing desktop technology. Stuff that puts the current desktop performace to shame. Let's say that you have a few important apps that depend on those libraries. Now, let's say that Trolltech decides that now is the time to start charging for the linux version of Qt. How are you protected?
Do you think everybody is going to sit around and wait for the free version to support those features again, or to be able to run crucial apps again? Sure you will be able to do whatever you want with the older version since you have the code, but forking in that way is not going to give you the same results as other project which have successfully forked. Do you remember apps that have not successfully forked? No. You tend to forget about them because they rapidly become obsolete.

Do you think that small number of the people can catch up to the Trollteck full-time Qtlibs developers? A lot of functionality was developed when MacOSX was developed. What did linux get? Fine, a typical kde app has a smaller chance of crashing abd may run a tad faster, but there is much, much more there.

You can say that your software is GPL, but that does not mean that your business supports free software.


Also, Ubuntu is not a fork. This is mentioned. It is a snapshot of debian SId. They synchronize regularly. Forks do not do that. This is an example of how healthy open source software can be. It's kinda an anti-fork. Maybe a good word for it would be a twist.




Twist. ...now you are laughing at me.

ralph_ubuntu
March 1st, 2005, 07:25 PM
"Nope, it assures that also all future versions of Qt will be free software. Read again. To say that this doesn't offer any more protection is just wrong.

And if you concede that even the current version always allows for forking as it is under the GPL, what is your point about Qt turning non-free again?"

Let's say (again) that Trolltech develops mindblowing desktop technology. Stuff that puts the current desktop performace to shame. Let's say that you have a few important apps that depend on those libraries. Now, let's say that Trolltech decides that now is the time to start charging for the linux version of Qt. How are you protected?

Well first of all you are protected by the simple fact that Qt is GPL, as has been mentioned again and again. If you link your app to the GPL'd Qt, some future version that isn't under the GPL would take away nothing from you and your app, it would simply mean that you could not link to newer versions.
But wait, didn't I post about a dozen times already that Trolltech has signed a contract that makes such a scenario impossible, as Qt would then automatically be released under a BSD like license? So Trolltech actually signed away their right to make Qt closed source.



Do you think everybody is going to sit around and wait for the free version to support those features again, or to be able to run crucial apps again?

Again, nobody will have to wait for anything, as the Qt version the apps are linked to is licensed under the GPL. And again, Trolltech has signed away their right to make Qt closed source.



Sure you will be able to do whatever you want with the older version since you have the code, but forking in that way is not going to give you the same results as other project which have successfully forked. Do you remember apps that have not successfully forked? No. You tend to forget about them because they rapidly become obsolete.
Again, this scenario is simply impossible. But for the sake of argument, even if it was possible, which it isn't, nothing would be taken away from the community, nothing at all.



Do you think that small number of the people can catch up to the Trollteck full-time Qtlibs developers? A lot of functionality was developed when MacOSX was developed. What did linux get? Fine, a typical kde app has a smaller chance of crashing abd may run a tad faster, but there is much, much more there.
As should be clear by now discussing this scenario is totally pointless, but still, you really seem to underestimate what open source developers can achieve.

jdodson
March 1st, 2005, 07:31 PM
This is mentioned. It is a snapshot of debian SId. They synchronize regularly. Forks do not do that. This is an example of how healthy open source software can be. It's kinda an anti-fork. Maybe a good word for it would be a twist.




Twist. ...now you are laughing at me.

i am not laughing, its a good way to think about it. i know its not a "fork" thats why i said "sort of." it is more like a derivative work of debian. though i still think xorg was a good thing.

az
March 1st, 2005, 08:16 PM
"though i still think xorg was a good thing."

I do not know much about that situation. Who was supporting Xfree and how big were they? When did Xorg start. Under what licence is Xfree going to be?

It would seem to me that the danger is that in this situation with Qt that the commercial enterprise would develop something with more features (like Xorg) before closing off. It seems to be the reverse of what I am describing with Qt.


"some future version that isn't under the GPL would take away nothing from you and your app, it would simply mean that you could not link to newer versions."
Yes. and if that newer version had a lot of dependancies and functionality, the old app would be obsolete. No, I do not lose it, I am just left behind.


"But wait, didn't I post about a dozen times already that Trolltech has signed a contract that makes such a scenario impossible, as Qt would then automatically be released under a BSD like license? So Trolltech actually signed away their right to make Qt closed source."

You do not seem to understand that what you are saying is that you will have the source code for the current version for ever nad ever and ever And that is a good thing. It is not, if the new (closed, reworked, renamed) library sets new standards, your code becomes obsolete. Free, but obsolete.


"Again, this scenario is simply impossible. But for the sake of argument, even if it was possible, which it isn't, nothing would be taken away from the community, nothing at all."

Whenever you take your head out of the sand, let me know. Please read carefully and try to understand what I am saying before you post, instead of being rude.

poofyhairguy
March 1st, 2005, 08:19 PM
Also, Ubuntu is not a fork. This is mentioned. It is a snapshot of debian SId. They synchronize regularly. Forks do not do that. This is an example of how healthy open source software can be. It's kinda an anti-fork. Maybe a good word for it would be a twist.


As twist? I like it. Thats a better way to describe things like Ubuntu. I think all the fork nonsense is generated by fear from the Debian community who don't want plain Debian to suffer.

I mean...no one calls Firefox a fork.

ralph_ubuntu
March 1st, 2005, 08:43 PM
"some future version that isn't under the GPL would take away nothing from you and your app, it would simply mean that you could not link to newer versions."
Yes. and if that newer version had a lot of dependancies and functionality, the old app would be obsolete. No, I do not lose it, I am just left behind.


"But wait, didn't I post about a dozen times already that Trolltech has signed a contract that makes such a scenario impossible, as Qt would then automatically be released under a BSD like license? So Trolltech actually signed away their right to make Qt closed source."

You do not seem to understand that what you are saying is that you will have the source code for the current version for ever nad ever and ever And that is a good thing. It is not, if the new (closed, reworked, renamed) library sets new standards, your code becomes obsolete. Free, but obsolete.

I understand fully well what I am saying. You on the other hand don't seem to be able to read. So let's see where we are now:
You started out by saying that Qt was not free because Trolltech could somehow simply take the GPL'd Qt away. You know seem to finally concede that this is not the case. So to say it clearly, if you link your app to Qt you don't have to worry about that someday all of a sudden the Qt version you linked to issn't available as free software anymore.

Then you claimed (and still seem to claim) that Trolltech could somehow decide not to release future versions of Qt as free software. Now apart from the fact that this holds true for nearly any software under the GPL, this doesn't hold true for Qt. Again, Tolltech has signed a contract that makes sure that would Trolltech do such a thing any new version of Qt would also be released as free software. So in this sense you are on the safer side using Qt than you are using almost any other GPL'd software.

Now as this situation seems to sink in you suggest that Trolltech could release a closed, reworked, renamed library, thereby circumventing the contract they signed. Now if constructing this scenario doesn't speak of desperation, what does?
But let's look at it anyway:
First of all, Trolltech would clearly break a contract, so this situation would be highly problematic for them, to say the least and of course highly unlikely. But even if they did pull this stunt of, there would still be the GPL'd version of Qt.

Ah, but now you claim that the closed, reworked, renamed library released by Trolltech breaking a contract would have some killer features the original GPL'd Qt has not, thereby making all the apps linked to Qt obsolete. This is of course a funny "argument", as this situation isn't different from any opensource software that has a closed source equivalent that is superior. So what exactly does make this problem so terrible with regard to Qt?
And now here's your last argument. You seem to assume that the open source community is somehow able to develop a world class operating system, world class tools for it, great toolkits like gtk, great desktop environments like Gnome and Kde but somehow for some freakish reason wouldn't be able to sustain the development of Qt in case that Trolltech doesn't develop it anymore. (Remember, they broke a contract and went closed source :D ). Now why this should be the case is beyond me, but I'm sure you'll enlighten me.
[/QUOTE]

poofyhairguy
March 1st, 2005, 08:53 PM
**Nautilus, however, I don't think I'll ever warm too. I just find it so clunky not being able to view the file trees like you can in Konquerer, Xfe, or (gulp!) win explorer**

I agree with you that Nautilus in its default spatial mode is one of the worst things about Gnome. I have read tons of explinations of why it is the default or why it is better, but most of them break down to "if you were to start all over with file managers (as in, you have no experiance), this would be a better way to do it." Unfortunatly most users have seen a feature packed file manager before, and the spatial gnome with its tons of open windows seems weak in comparison. Every Gnome box I touch I type

gconftool-2 --type bool --set /apps/nautilus/preferences/always_use_browser true

to disable Spatial Nautilus and enable the multimillion dollar Nautilus that made me fall in love with Gnome in the first place. I know that Windows converts that I have set-up Ubuntu for like the normal mode a lot more than the Spatial mode. If I forget that line, I always hear something like "I like Ubuntu, but dislike its file window." One line later, and they are commenting how regular Nautilus looks like the best thing since sliced bread.



P.S: But what I don't understand is why it is a problem. Are there actually significant disadvantages to just installing KDE, or enlightenment, or Xfce, or whatever, and using that GUI instead of GNOME? How fundamentally does this "streamlining" of Ubuntu and Gnome effect the alternative use of KDE? Is it some coding thing or are the GUI menu defaults the only sore point? :-s

There is not problem. I have installed KDE in Ubuntu. It works, but not as well as I would expect a KDE distro to work (such as USB drives appearing on the desktop- I love that!). I have installed XFCE in Ubuntu. The new version works great with Hoary, and my laptop remains like that every single day.

az
March 1st, 2005, 09:10 PM
'You started out by saying that Qt was not free because Trolltech could somehow simply take the GPL'd Qt away."

I said that Qt was a commercial product that is currently under a free licence.


"Then you claimed (and still seem to claim) that Trolltech could somehow decide not to release future versions of Qt as free software. Now apart from the fact that this holds true for nearly any software under the GPL, this doesn't hold true for Qt. Again, Tolltech has signed a contract that makes sure that would Trolltech do such a thing any new version of Qt would also be released as free software. So in this sense you are on the safer side using Qt than you are using almost any other GPL'd software."

You are dreaming. That "contract" only proves that they realize that people have concerns about their pilocies.


"Now as this situation seems to sink in you suggest that Trolltech could release a closed, reworked, renamed library, thereby circumventing the contract they signed. Now if constructing this scenario doesn't speak of desperation, what does?"

Why can't you just be nice? Yes, this is what I said.

"But let's look at it anyway:
First of all, Trolltech would clearly break a contract, so this situation would be highly problematic for them, to say the least and of course highly unlikely. But even if they did pull this stunt of, there would still be the GPL'd version of Qt.

Ah, but now you claim that the closed, reworked, renamed library released by Trolltech breaking a contract would have some killer features the original GPL'd Qt has not, thereby making all the apps linked to Qt obsolete. This is of course a funny "argument", as this situation isn't different from any opensource software that has a closed source equivalent that is superior. So what exactly does make this problem so terrible with regard to Qt?"

Having an equivalent is completely different than licencing _the same software_ under two licences.


"And now here's your last argument. You seem to assume that the open source community is somehow able to develop a world class operating system, world class tools for it, great toolkits like gtk, great desktop environments like Gnome and Kde but somehow for some freakish reason wouldn't be able to sustain the development of Qt in case that Trolltech doesn't develop it anymore. (Remember, they broke a contract and went closed source ). Now why this should be the case is beyond me, but I'm sure you'll enlighten me."

You said it yourself. The open source community did not develop Qt. A commercial enterprise did. It is completely feasable. MacOS X is based on FreeBSD. They have an open-source project named Darwin. Can Darwin run Safari? Does it have all the features of OSX?

No.


http://developer.apple.com/darwin/

ralph_ubuntu
March 1st, 2005, 09:27 PM
'You started out by saying that Qt was not free because Trolltech could somehow simply take the GPL'd Qt away."

I said that Qt was a commercial product that is currently under a free licence.

You said that too, which doesn't invalidate my point.



"Then you claimed (and still seem to claim) that Trolltech could somehow decide not to release future versions of Qt as free software. Now apart from the fact that this holds true for nearly any software under the GPL, this doesn't hold true for Qt. Again, Tolltech has signed a contract that makes sure that would Trolltech do such a thing any new version of Qt would also be released as free software. So in this sense you are on the safer side using Qt than you are using almost any other GPL'd software."

You are dreaming. That "contract" only proves that they realize that people have concerns about their pilocies.

How so? Any argument to support your claim? Are you a lawyer, could you break it done for us laymen why the contract doesn't offer the protection it is supposed to offer? Thanks in advance.



"Now as this situation seems to sink in you suggest that Trolltech could release a closed, reworked, renamed library, thereby circumventing the contract they signed. Now if constructing this scenario doesn't speak of desperation, what does?"

Why can't you just be nice? Yes, this is what I said.

Because I don't like people spreading FUD and insulting people.



"But let's look at it anyway:
First of all, Trolltech would clearly break a contract, so this situation would be highly problematic for them, to say the least and of course highly unlikely. But even if they did pull this stunt of, there would still be the GPL'd version of Qt.

Ah, but now you claim that the closed, reworked, renamed library released by Trolltech breaking a contract would have some killer features the original GPL'd Qt has not, thereby making all the apps linked to Qt obsolete. This is of course a funny "argument", as this situation isn't different from any opensource software that has a closed source equivalent that is superior. So what exactly does make this problem so terrible with regard to Qt?"

Having an equivalent is completely different than licencing _the same software_ under two licences.

Which does have exactly what to do with the issue at hand? Oh, nothing. So again, what exactly does that have to do with the issue at hand? How does the fact that it is currently dual licensed make a scenario where Trolltech break a contract and release a closed, reworked, renamed library worse? How exactly does it make it different from a scenario where there is an equivalent superior closed source product for an opern source program?



"And now here's your last argument. You seem to assume that the open source community is somehow able to develop a world class operating system, world class tools for it, great toolkits like gtk, great desktop environments like Gnome and Kde but somehow for some freakish reason wouldn't be able to sustain the development of Qt in case that Trolltech doesn't develop it anymore. (Remember, they broke a contract and went closed source ). Now why this should be the case is beyond me, but I'm sure you'll enlighten me."

You said it yourself. The open source community did not develop Qt. A commercial enterprise did. It is completely feasable. MacOS X is based on FreeBSD. They have an open-source project named Darwin. Can Darwin run Safari? Does it have all the features of OSX?
Which does tell us exactly what about the issue at hand? Again, nothing. So again, what exactly prevents a community that can create and maintain several operating systems, several databases, several desktop environments, you name it, suddenly incapable of maintaining Qt?

TravisNewman
March 2nd, 2005, 01:55 AM
Note: part of this post references topics discussed here:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=17369&page=2&pp=40

ralph, are you familiar with the BSD license? Nowhere near as much protection for the user as GPL. THAT is a serious worry for me. If CompanyA decides to grab the source and develop on it, closed source, and goes leaps and bounds, sets standards for QT variants, and obliterates the competition, then that's a major problem. You've said yourself that it could go to a BSD license.

I would like to mention that I think this is a non issue as of now. It may BECOME an issue.

You also ask how their licensing is wish-washy. Well, they have two different licensing methods, one of which being GPL, and if they ever stop development it goes BSD. That sounds wishy-washy to me.

Now lets talk about FUD as a concept.

FUD=Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.
If I say I don't like KDE because it's bloated, there are 15 different applications for each task, etc (note that I wouldn't, I don't agree with these points), is that FUD? No. It's an opinion. It may be misinformed, and it may be specific to the user, but it's not FUD. No opinion can be considered FUD, and no misinformation can be considered FUD, unless it's INTENTIONALLY trying to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt in people. Microsoft using skewed tests to prove that they are cheaper for running servers is FUD. If I were to say "Windows sucks because it's slow, it crashes all the time, it's bloated, etc" most people on these forums would say "yep, you're right" but if I were to say that I hate KDE (which I don't) because it's bloated, slow, and I don't like the licensing, about half the people start screaming FUD. It CAN'T BE BOTH WAYS.

KiwiNZ
March 2nd, 2005, 01:55 AM
Play nice folks , my finger doth hover over close button [-X

KiwiNZ
March 2nd, 2005, 01:57 AM
This thread I believe has run its course , again my finger doth hover over the close button

TravisNewman
March 2nd, 2005, 01:58 AM
The subject being discussed in this thread is exactly the same as the subject in this thread:
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=81963&posted=1#post81963

It was supposed to be a SERIOUS KDE/GNOME thread, as the topic suggests, and it isn't anymore, therefore I'm closing this topic. Any further discussion along these lines should go to the thread above.

If anyone wants to try another thread, feel free, but I doubt it will work. There are too many zealots for both environments for this to ever happen.

ralph_ubuntu
March 2nd, 2005, 02:01 AM
This thread I believe has run its course , again my finger doth hover over the close button

Please press now!

Edit:
Just saw panickedthumb's post:
Yes I am familiar with the BSD license, yes I do prefer the GPL, no that doesn't speak against Qt. You might not be aware of it but every author can change the license for future versions of his software. The only difference is that Trolltech provides its users with the assurance that would they ever decide to go fully closed sourced, they will not be able to. That's more than you get with practically any other GPL software, yet it doesn't seem to be good enough for you.

Now about the FUD issue, intentionally ignoring information and repeatedly giving out misinformation is FUD. And claiming against all the information there is and against any common sense that KDE is not free software, that it might someday not be free software anymore, that it is against the free software spirit, that people who use and develop kde don't care about freedom is insulting and FUD.

Examples:
"It's a messy situation, and the fact that there's no GPL means that they could change stances at any time. Why would they license the software in this way if they didn't have at least an inkling of a plan for this?" There's no GPL, they have an inkling of a plan of this? This is not FUD?

"I'm referring to the version that requires licensing. They could pull the gpl version at any time and require licensing to use qt at all. That's not FUD."
It isn't? If it isn't FUD it is at least totally uninformed and wrong, which is of course surprising, as the links showing that this bs is wrong have been posted several times already. So what am I supposed to assume, that you are unable to read or that you are spreading FUD?

"My point about the licensing is that they could pull their gpl'ed version and completely switch over to the one that requires licensing. And that's not FUD." This after it has been shown specifically to you that this is not that case. No FUD? But what else could explain your behavior?

And now please close the topic or I might really get angry.

TravisNewman
March 2nd, 2005, 02:03 AM
This thread I believe has run its course , again my finger doth hover over the close button
If it can stay clean, or rather GET CLEAN, I see no problem with it staying open. It's good to have a kde vs gnome thread as long as GOOD topics are discussed. It was one of these threads that actually got me to try KDE again and not hate it anymore (though I do hate the older versions). However two heated threads on the exact same topic is couterproductive and useless, so the other one is closed.

My finger doth'd hovered and then clickethed. ;)

KiwiNZ
March 2nd, 2005, 02:06 AM
Good on ya , now you watch them why I go make some lunch cos my stomach is sending distress signals to see if my throat is cut

az
March 2nd, 2005, 03:03 AM
It would be interesting to count how many times our opinions were repeated in the past seventy posts in both threads.

In regard to cleaning this up, I have nothing personal against ralph. He can buy me a beer anytime. We'd discuss abortion or something...







Zealots? You're a digit!

TravisNewman
March 2nd, 2005, 03:10 AM
Back on the point of KDE in general, I'm about to try 3.4 RC1, and I've never used Konstruct before. It reminds me a lot of emerge in Gentoo, but man it's slick so far.

It even picked the closest mirror quite accurately! I'm downloading from VA Tech, and I live about 15 minutes away from VA Tech. However, this brings back memories of living in the dorms of Radford University (as opposed to the 1 block away from RU I live now) and trying to download from VT servers. They are SLOW for some reason. So while it picked the closest server, it didn't exaclty pick the fastest one. Does anyone know which it's SUPPOSED to do?

And if you're a stalker, please go back and unread that last paragraph ;)

Anyway, I would like to say, now that I'm much more chilled out, that I do openly welcome KDE to Ubuntu. While the licensing DOES bother me, it's not restrictive at the moment, and like I said in the other thread, it's a non issue for me. Windows licensing has always bothered me but I used it for years, didn't I?

Seriously though, I'd love to see some cooperation between Gnome and KDE devs to make Knome or GDE or something. They both annoy me sometimes, but they could come together to make something spectacular. I think there needs to be more cooperation like that in the Linux community.

poofyhairguy
March 2nd, 2005, 04:05 AM
If it can stay clean, or rather GET CLEAN, I see no problem with it staying open.

How about this. I pick a favorite program from each. Copycats are welcome.


KDE- K3B

Gnome-GTKPod

TravisNewman
March 2nd, 2005, 04:19 AM
KDE- Easily K3b
Gnome- would be Gnomad2 if it would freakin' work, but I have to use Neutrino for my nomad, which isn't as good. Appears we're both audio freaks Brian--- er... poofyhairguy (on an aside, I can't help but hear Brian's voice whenever I read your posts)

And to reply to azz:
What's "digit" mean in that context? *L*
And amen, brother. I'd love to have a beer with Ralph. And you! One thing that gets lost in text I think is the smiling that I've been doing the whole time. I LOVE debate like this, or about abortion, or the death penalty, etc etc. Some people just get really upset.

So Ralph, sorry if we upset you, really! It is debate, and the more heated the more important, I think. I just hope bygones can be bygones.

Ironi
March 2nd, 2005, 04:45 AM
Seriously though, I'd love to see some cooperation between Gnome and KDE devs to make Knome or GDE or something.
Oh god. :shock:

poofyhairguy
March 2nd, 2005, 04:54 AM
KDE- Easily K3b
Gnome- would be Gnomad2 if it would freakin' work, but I have to use Neutrino for my nomad, which isn't as good. Appears we're both audio freaks Brian--- er... poofyhairguy (on an aside, I can't help but hear Brian's voice whenever I read your posts)


Brian is my hero. Smart but sassy. I bet he would use Ubuntu if he could (or OSX).



I love my iPod, but I HATE itunes. Everything about it. GtkPod is a linux jewel to me. It looks great, and it only lacks features I don't use (like the itunes music store). I love how it automounts my iPod and HOW HOARY HAS THE NEWEST VERSION. Sorry to shout but I love using it. I don't think even Sid has the newest version. That will be one of the two things to drawn in the Debinites to Ubuntu come fall- xorg, and new GTKpod.

EDIT: To keep this post kinda on topic, I have used GTKpod with KDE and it works well.

TravisNewman
March 2nd, 2005, 06:14 AM
OK, konstruct broke when installing QT. So not exactly working well.

See... I wanted an iPod, but I had the choice of getting 20 gigs more for the same price by going with the Nomad. Why would I want an iPod then? I mean it looks awesome, and if money were no object I'd get it just for that ;) But is it really worth that much more?

poofyhairguy
March 2nd, 2005, 07:51 AM
But is it really worth that much more?

Yep. Simply for the reason that it is THE mp3 player (by market share and by fame), and that means that there is better 3rd party support... such as great "unofficial" cables and chargers (much better than other players get), or a Linux app that works better than the app meant to be used on the supported OS (iTunes vs GTKPod).

Slapdash
March 2nd, 2005, 08:41 AM
I just want to state the following.

My opinion is just that.
An opinion. and its mine, thats why its called my opinion.

A lot of people have the mindset that... My mind is already made up... Dont bother me with facts.

Choice is good and good debates are great to read.

:grin:

ralph_ubuntu
March 2nd, 2005, 10:28 AM
And amen, brother. I'd love to have a beer with Ralph. And you! One thing that gets lost in text I think is the smiling that I've been doing the whole time. I LOVE debate like this, or about abortion, or the death penalty, etc etc. Some people just get really upset.

So Ralph, sorry if we upset you, really! It is debate, and the more heated the more important, I think. I just hope bygones can be bygones.
Don't worry, I'm not upset and I enjoyed the debate. :-D
And beer always sounds great, though coffee is the drug of my choice at the moment as I just got up.

TravisNewman
March 3rd, 2005, 02:24 PM
OK I've gotten konstruct to work much better. It's just a matter of figuring out what dependencies you need to install that it thinks you have but you don't. A lot of -dev packages that it doesn't resolve, and you don't know you need them until compiling fails. This is the newest error:
/usr/lib/libGL.a(glxcmds.o)(.text+0x2eea): In function `glXGetMscRateOML':
: undefined reference to `XF86VidModeQueryVersion'
/usr/lib/libGL.a(glxcmds.o)(.text+0x2f1a): In function `glXGetMscRateOML':
: undefined reference to `XF86VidModeGetModeLine'

anyone know what I could do to fix this one? I've been racking my brain on this one for a while. It's when it tries to compile kcontrol, part of kdebase.

Ironi
March 3rd, 2005, 08:13 PM
anyone know what I could do to fix this one? I've been racking my brain on this one for a while. It's when it tries to compile kcontrol, part of kdebase.
apt-get install libxxf86vm-dev

... and you might have to rerun configure if it's not trying to link against -lXxf86vm -- this is why building from non-Debianized source sucks (no apt-get build-dep whatever). :p

Ironi
March 4th, 2005, 01:43 AM
Speaking of Debianized source... http://pkg-kde.alioth.debian.org/kde-3.4.0/

It seems to be incomplete, though (packages and source diffs for kdebase, kdenetwork, kdeutils and others are missing).

regeya
March 4th, 2005, 03:14 AM
Again, I leave for a while and find that this thread has degenerated into a flamewar between two sides. :-(

One amusing thing from this thread and others, if you boil down the information: Qt is both Free and not Free. GNOME is faster than KDE, while KDE is faster than GNOME. GNOME is freer than KDE, while KDE is freer than GNOME. KDE is threatened by the dual-licensing nature of Qt, and though that's not entirely true, it's verboten to discuss the legalities of Mono.

Both sides are right, both sides are wrong. There is no middle ground, only cold hard facts that support notions that are complete opposites. :D

The main thing I've gotten from this thread is that people still, STILL seem to think that the whole Qt-KDE thing isn't quite legal. Well, it is. Get over it. :D The real kicker is that Qt is licensed under Troll Tech's own license AND the GPL, which means that non-proprietary software that wants to be Open Source has to comply with Free Software guidelines. While the GNOME project can argue that it's more free because the base libs are mostly LGPL, it can also be argued that that very issue, the more liberal licensing of core libs, means that GNOME is more opposed to the spirit of Free Software than GNOME.

I don't believe that GNOME is less free than KDE for a minute. All I believe is that if someone wants to write a proprietary app for KDE, there's a financial obligation, while with GNOME there is not. That's the big difference in licensing issues for me, and anything else is just splitting hairs.

Now, can we stop arguing about which one's uglier and which one's prettier? Can I as the instigator of the whole thing ask that we not talk about useless eyecandy?

regeya
March 4th, 2005, 03:23 AM
While using KDE i feel like i'm just emulating "Redmond's" way .
)

Where do I find the equivalent to IOSlaves in Windows, eh?

TravisNewman
March 4th, 2005, 03:26 AM
regeya: You put it quite well I think. I don't, however, think anyone was questioning the LEGALITY of QT, but whether it's ethical. Ethics are like fingerprints-- nobody's is the same as someone elses. Therefore this debate will go on until after Gnome and KDE are both gone from the world of Open Source.

So yes, it's pointless, but sometimes it's fun ;) It's an ethical debate, just like abortion, but not as serious, and much more geeky.

TravisNewman
March 4th, 2005, 03:49 AM
apt-get install libxxf86vm-dev

... and you might have to rerun configure if it's not trying to link against -lXxf86vm -- this is why building from non-Debianized source sucks (no apt-get build-dep whatever). :p
That didn't work. And I never RAN configure exactly, all you have to do is cd to meta/kde and run make install and it does the rest.

regeya
March 4th, 2005, 04:28 AM
regeya: You put it quite well I think. I don't, however, think anyone was questioning the LEGALITY of QT, but whether it's ethical. Ethics are like fingerprints-- nobody's is the same as someone elses. Therefore this debate will go on until after Gnome and KDE are both gone from the world of Open Source.

So yes, it's pointless, but sometimes it's fun ;) It's an ethical debate, just like abortion, but not as serious, and much more geeky.

Oh! Ethics! Well, if you want to get into ethics, then yeah...I don't think that KDE and GNOME have firm ethical ground. KDE is based on Qt, a largely commercial toolkit with dual-licensing, and GNOME is a Free project that nevertheless has members who like to claim that GNOME is more closed-source-friendly than KDE.

Whatever; may the best project win. :grin:

bored2k
March 4th, 2005, 04:53 AM
If Ubuntu would start up looking ugly as this [below...dial up beware], mos def id be petrified, and jot down
sudo su; apt-get remove kde kdm; apt-get install gnome gdm
so my brother would do this while i cry in the bathroom .

btw , this is not a fake, its the Kubuntu project, based on kde 3.4

http://people.ubuntu.com/~mdz/kubuntu/kubuntu.png

Ironi
March 4th, 2005, 04:57 AM
That didn't work. And I never RAN configure exactly, all you have to do is cd to meta/kde and run make install and it does the rest.
Oh. Shows you how much I know about Konstruct.

As for your problem, that might be a bug with xlibmesa-gl-dev; I wouldn't know, since nvidia-glx makes libGL.a disappear. ;) You could try renaming libGL.a temporarily and perhaps the linker will use libGL.so instead (shared).

TravisNewman
March 4th, 2005, 05:26 AM
Wait, the Kubuntu project is based on 3.4? It still says 3.3.2 on everything I have installed, and I just upgraded everything about an hour ago.

Also, why would you type "sudo su" before removing kde and installing gnome? That seems kinda redundant :)

TravisNewman
March 4th, 2005, 05:30 AM
Oh. Shows you how much I know about Konstruct.

As for your problem, that might be a bug with xlibmesa-gl-dev; I wouldn't know, since nvidia-glx makes libGL.a disappear. ;) You could try renaming libGL.a temporarily and perhaps the linker will use libGL.so instead (shared).
No that just gave me an error about -lGL not being found.

phorim
March 4th, 2005, 05:45 PM
I find myself switching between Gnome ,KDE and XFCE depending on my feelings when I log on .
Don't you just love the choice and freedom Linux gives you .

I'm thinking this may be what I'm going to end up doing as well. I originally wanted KDE because I didn't know what I needed. As my idea of what I want my PC to do becomes clearer, I find myself looking for the simplest solution that still encompasses the things that I want.

As an example, I'm now running primarily under Gentoo. I still look forward to using Ubuntu again, but I think I'll wait for the Hoary release.

I've also toyed with the ideas of Damn Small Linux and Vector. When and if my personalities finally settle on one distro, it will be a good day.

I think my next project is to try some of the "lightweight" window managers. I'm going to hunt around for a couple sites that compare some. #-o

darrenadams
March 4th, 2005, 05:50 PM
I agree. I love my nice clean gnome desktop, I love my GTK apps, and I would love to have a replacement for K3B so I could get these dirty QT libs off my system.

http://zenhardwhere.com/images/glider.png

Have you looked at Gnomebaker (http://www.biddell.co.uk/gnomebaker.php)?

CowPie
March 5th, 2005, 02:21 AM
If Ubuntu would start up looking ugly as this [below...dial up beware], mos def id be petrified, and jot down
so my brother would do this while i cry in the bathroom .

btw , this is not a fake, its the Kubuntu project, based on kde 3.4

http://people.ubuntu.com/~mdz/kubuntu/kubuntu.png

Well, they're using Keramik, that's hwy it's ugly! :)

Plastik is my favourite computer hteme ever. The only reason KDE doesn't use it is because the help files don't include plastik. I personally wish they could just retake those screeesnhots with plastik!

puelly
March 7th, 2005, 08:06 PM
I don't know about others out there, but I thought I was going to break something trying to figure out where everything was in Ubuntu. I take it this wasn't designed for former ******* users to start using Linux for the first time. I'm using synaptic to install KDE as I'm writing this, but I thought I'd just give my thoughts instead of breaking stuff around the room.

i think that XFCE is the absolute best desktop, GNOME is a very close second. I get overwhelmed by KDE. Too many items. Ubuntu's and GNOME's approach to the desktop seem ideal for me. Then again, I do like the OS X.

beerorkid
March 7th, 2005, 08:27 PM
I can still accomplish the same things in the console. I am still impressed by shiny objects though. I was worried about gnome until I used it for about ten minutes and felt at home.

Jad
March 7th, 2005, 10:25 PM
Keep it simple, Keep it Gnome.

MetalMusicAddict
March 7th, 2005, 10:45 PM
The 2 things I wish I could do with Nautilus is put toolbars on the same line and remove icons I dont use. Not just on top of each other. Otherwise I do find Gnome better than KDE from a users standpoint.

morethannoise
March 7th, 2005, 11:21 PM
I don't dislike either gnome or kde as I use them both. I don't find difficulty using either even with a longtime relationship with windows.

defkewl
March 8th, 2005, 02:40 AM
If people want windows, they should stick with windows.
I like this statement. Kewl

bored2k
March 8th, 2005, 02:51 AM
I find myself switching between Gnome ,KDE and XFCE depending on my feelings when I log on .
Don't you just love the choice and freedom Linux gives you .
I did to this a lot on Mandrake, but stopped after i noticed how sluggishly slow KDE sometimes got [this is not a KDE hate thread so if u dont think the same please dont flame me lol!!] .

Then I switched between Gnome and XFce ... but then again , I noticed how i would use XFce exactly the same i do Gnome, only with the rox-filer I so love [almost more than nautilus], so now i just do Gnome, and i use rox as a manager :D . Might be a wee bit slower, but I think my Pentium IV can handle this ... [tho when im video editing I would love to go shell only... bu then again, I would not see what i'm doing lol ].

TravisNewman
March 8th, 2005, 03:23 AM
[tho when im video editing I would love to go shell only... bu then again, I would not see what i'm doing lol ].
Now if someone could pull off a CLI video editor I would be a very happy man ;) It's POSSIBLE with the framebuffer-- On the System Rescue CD, QTParted runs cli though the framebuffer.

bored2k
March 8th, 2005, 03:38 AM
Now if someone could pull off a CLI video editor I would be a very happy man ;) It's POSSIBLE with the framebuffer-- On the System Rescue CD, QTParted runs cli though the framebuffer.
That's cool ... im guessing some of Hiren's Disc (http://62.253.162.19/hiren.thanki/bootcd.html) also run that way.


Wow u just made my drool ... avidemux on cli ... wow

Slapdash
March 8th, 2005, 07:34 AM
I thought I liked KDE until I REALLY found Gnome.

I love Gnome now.
It's clean, its lean, its a true windows managing machine!


There is a learning curve due to its different "thinking style" to MS Windows and KDE

bored2k
March 8th, 2005, 09:24 AM
I thought I liked KDE until I REALLY found Gnome.

I love Gnome now.
It's clean, its lean, its a true windows managing machine!


There is a learning curve due to its different "thinking style" to MS Windows and KDE
thats the main probs with ppl straight from redmond, but thats what were looking for right ? a change .

I have to say tho i had been using lynx, but some1 here pointed out elinks, and im at the point where i would just go shell and 4get bout pictures and gui and everything

Gnome = Great

eLinks + mp3blaster + screen + nano = Viewtiful.

landotter
March 8th, 2005, 06:12 PM
So if you drive a Citroen with a shifter in the dashboard for many years and trade it in for a Ford you then complain that Ford's incorrectly put the shifter in the floor? :P

My cousins who begged me to install Linux were the same way: it was "wrong to not have just a "start button" on the bottom left. It as wrong to not have trash on the desktop. It was wrong to not have a bunch of launchers on the desktop and not a nicely organized menu...

Brainwashed is what that is.

It's still so much like windows it's rediculous--how hard can it really be to adapt--it's not like it's something more obscure like Enlightenment or a *box window manager.

There's a clicky place to find your programs. There's a toolbar to put launchers on. A window list, clock, and volume applet finish the deal.

Oh, that's right, they're in different places. Oy.

Bloody sheep.

Do people really want their intelligence insulted by a crappy windows copy?

Yes?

Then Lycoris, or Xandros might be your bag. They're not bad distros--but I do find their UI to be insulting.

If you're too dumb to drag some toolbars around to your liking in Gnome, then stick with windows. Really. I don't mean to be insulting--but if you think that everybody needs to copy poor design to make it palatable to tha masses, then you're entitled to that opinion--and I'll feel entitled to laugh at it. ;)

Baaaah.

:P

bored2k
March 8th, 2005, 06:19 PM
So if you drive a Citroen with a shifter in the dashboard for many years and trade it in for a Ford you then complain that Ford's incorrectly put the shifter in the floor? :P

My cousins who begged me to install Linux were the same way: it was "wrong to not have just a "start button" on the bottom left. It as wrong to not have trash on the desktop. It was wrong to not have a bunch of launchers on the desktop and not a nicely organized menu...

Brainwashed is what that is.

It's still so much like windows it's rediculous--how hard can it really be to adapt--it's not like it's something more obscure like Enlightenment or a *box window manager.

There's a clicky place to find your programs. There's a toolbar to put launchers on. A window list, clock, and volume applet finish the deal.

Oh, that's right, they're in different places. Oy.

Bloody sheep.

Do people really want their intelligence insulted by a crappy windows copy?

Yes?

Then Lycoris, or Xandros might be your bag. They're not bad distros--but I do find their UI to be insulting.

If you're too dumb to drag some toolbars around to your liking in Gnome, then stick with windows. Really. I don't mean to be insulting--but if you think that everybody needs to copy poor design to make it palatable to tha masses, then you're entitled to that opinion--and I'll feel entitled to laugh at it. ;)

Baaaah.

:P
Yeah , mostly everywone on Redmong Hell Gates are just not willing to learn nor be teached. They complain about v!rus and spyware and the OS getting noticeable slower session after session, yet they're still attached to it and refuse to use anything else.

I still don't get them , it's like they think Linux or anything else aims to be a "Clone War" copy of XP with the annoyances removed . C'mon! "the start button on the bottom left" ?! It's almost as barbaric as someone refusing to use firefox because the hotmail toolbar wont show...

edit >> Yes i recently tried Xandros v3 and Oh boy, in less than 2 hours I was doing "apt-get install gnome gdm; apt-get remove kdm" [in Xandros, if you even dare deleting KDE, you're getting Pwn3d.]

KiwiNZ
March 8th, 2005, 08:09 PM
Ummmm is KDE locked down :confused: ?????????
hmmm I customise to heck and back .

bored2k
March 8th, 2005, 08:17 PM
Ummmm is KDE locked down :confused: ?????????
hmmm I customise to heck and back .
We know it's not locked, but 1st impression do counts. The minute i login 2 KDE and I see its general layout, reminding me of the Oh so wasted 10yrs on Redmond Camp, my brain goes
http://img177.exs.cx/img177/1218/1537924shockedpeopleap3004gv.jpg

And btw, if you have tried Xandros, you would know the best thing you could do is not mess with its layout. Its super duper uglier than any KDE I might whine about, and that is REALLY -almost- locked .

jdonnell
March 8th, 2005, 10:06 PM
I'm a long time Suse/kde user and have recently started using ubuntu/gnome a little. I'm typing this from suse/kde now :)

Here are my thoughts. I like gnome better, but I find konqueror much nicer than nautilus. However, I LOVE some of the kde apps like k3b and kate. The combination of kate and vim is the perfect development environment for me (I do php/python all day).

At this point I'm not sure which way I'm going to go. I love the ubuntu philosophy and community, I love apt-get, and in general I like gnome better than kde. However, Suse is a well polished distro (minus the community/philosophy part) and I am addicted to kde apps like kate. And I use kate all day so a good replacement is necessary. I'm trying out scite and eclipse and hopefully one of them will be good enought :)

kevanf1
March 9th, 2005, 02:02 PM
I'm quite frankly amazed at the seeming hatred towards either Gnome or KDE. I have stated elsewhere that I prefer KDE but I can use Gnome - I have to with Ubuntu until I get around to installing KDE instead. But all this talk of KDE being overwhelming? It's called choice in my book. You choose what you want to use and are happy with then simply clear the rest off the menu or even off your PC. It's easy :-) With Gnome you don't really have much choice. You accept what it put on there unless you are able to add new stuff. Not everybody has that capability don't forget.

Whatever, it's Linux, enjoy it :-)

TravisNewman
March 9th, 2005, 07:10 PM
OK KDE 3.4 is pretty sweet! I like the fact that it has a composite manager built in (though at the moment it's pretty freakin slow). I'm still playing around, but if Gnome doesn't do SOMETHING with their menu editing soon, I may be sticking with KDE for a while (though I'll most likely end up with XFCE or sticking with Gnome)

bored2k
March 9th, 2005, 07:14 PM
Well, they're using Keramik, that's hwy it's ugly! :)

Plastik is my favourite computer hteme ever. The only reason KDE doesn't use it is because the help files don't include plastik. I personally wish they could just retake those screeesnhots with plastik!
That is so ugly oh my ... It looks like it was hand drawn by a 3yr old kid :s


Yes plastik is nice, I liked the fact that Xandros v3 at least had Plastik as default .

wallijonn
March 9th, 2005, 09:28 PM
phorim,

What would you have done if you went from Windows XP to a Mac? What would you have done had you gone to OpenBSD, FreeBSD, Slackware, Gentoo or Suse?

uh, you would have had to invest a lot of time into learning where everything is and how to do anything. I believe Suse 9.3 comes out today. Fedora Core 3 should be out by now. Did you learn Windows in one hour? Or did it take you years?

beerorkid
March 10th, 2005, 05:06 AM
Here are my thoughts. I like gnome better, but I find konqueror much nicer than nautilus. However, I LOVE some of the kde apps like k3b and kate. The combination of kate and vim is the perfect development environment for me (I do php/python all day).

I was all SuSE for a while and was afraid of going gnome.

You can use KDE apps in gnome, once I figured that out I gave up SuSE.

I use konqueror and k3b in ubuntu, and I checked and Kate is there as well.

I am using ubuntu at work now and I must say it is faster and I have less issues with ubuntu.

TravisNewman
March 10th, 2005, 05:27 AM
I just remembered possibly the worst idea ever. <censored>ing Konqi!!! That freakin cartoon dragon that greets you in the about dialog and the logout dialog! It just adds to people's fuel for saying that KDE is too cartoony. By the time I have KDE set up the way I want it, it doesn't look cartoony, but that freakin' dragon can go to heck! If there's a way to get rid of it, please tell me-- to me it's slightly more irritating than the paperclip in MS Office.

Other than that and my dislike of Konqueror (it doesn't really look polished at all, and it's not very intuitive, to me anyway) I'm actually enjoying KDE a lot! Things are very different from Gnome, but not as counterintuitive as they used to be in KDE 2.xx-3.2ish. A lot of really minor things can make a lot of difference.

TravisNewman
March 10th, 2005, 05:29 AM
Ugh, I find myself using Nautilus in KDE. I REALLY don't get the appeal of Konqueror (As I just posted elsewhere ;). While it DOES have it's good points, it just doesn't FEEL right somehow, and it's not just that I'm not used to it. Nautilus felt right from the first time I used it, even after using Windows Explorer for years (which I think Konqueror matches more than Nautilus)

Ozitraveller
March 10th, 2005, 06:27 AM
No, I prefer Gnome, simple, clean, smart.

jimarko
March 11th, 2005, 12:58 PM
I began using KDE on Fedora Core 3, and it seemed ok, but what pulled me over to GNOME was the fact that CDs automount, and it generally seemed that KDE was too 'full' for me. I must admit that K3B is a great piece of software, but I'm yet to do any solid research on decent GNOME-based burning apps, so I'm not too fussed at the moment.

For a while i had a hand at Enlightenment, but as I am still in the process of 'windows-detox', it was a little to minimalistic for me yet.

I moved over to Ubuntu because it is primarily GNOME-based, and there were no issues with GNOME menu editing like there were in Fedora *shudder*

So long story short, count my vote for GNOME on Ubuntu.

jimmy

ps. This is probably not the place in the forum, but big thanks so far to the Ubuntu team for producing such an excellent distro!! Keep it up!

joplass
March 11th, 2005, 02:24 PM
I don't know about others out there, but I thought I was going to break something trying to figure out where everything was in Ubuntu. I take it this wasn't designed for former ******* users to start using Linux for the first time. I'm using synaptic to install KDE as I'm writing this, but I thought I'd just give my thoughts instead of breaking stuff around the room.

I am glad to be running Ubuntu these days because to me Kde looks more like windows. Running Linux is running Gnome, my personal opinion tho. After I installed Ubuntu I also ran to Synaptic for a Kde installation without even giving a chance to Gnome. Then I decided to go back and try Gnome. Since then I am all Gnome. I was even thinking about taking Kde out but Konqueror is too good for files and folders browsing. Distros I used before Ubuntu did not make Gnome look or feel the way it is with Ubuntu. But I guess we all feel comfortable with some things but not others.

lgoss007
March 16th, 2005, 07:17 PM
I used to use KDE (in Mandrake) because it was more appealing to me. I thought Gnome looked ugly and it didn't seem to have as much cool eye candy and also seemed to function a little awkward. The default icons seemed bland and kinda dark, as opposed to KDE's brighter icons. It also seemed to handle transparency on things a lot better. But I was unhappy with the updates for Mandrake (and I was part of club), and rpm's were always giving me a hassle.

I did a major distro test where I tested out about 10-15 different distributions and I was down to Mandrake, Mepis, Fedora, and Ubuntu. Of course I stayed away from Ubuntu at first because it was Gnome based, but then I gave it another try and I really liked it... after I fixed up Gnome. :grin:


... but I find konqueror much nicer than nautilus. However, I LOVE some of the kde apps like k3b and kate. The combination of kate and vim is the perfect development environment for me (I do php/python all day).

Nautilus I didn't like at first because of some of the default options (like spatial). I think it's nice Gnome supports different ways of browsing because different users have different preferences. Gedit seems to be just as good as kate to me and there has already been mention of an alternative to k3b.

One thing I really like about Ubuntu is the constant updates to things like nvidia drivers, xorg, gnome, etc. Of course I'm runny Hoary which I guess things will change when it's released and updates will slow down. So I think there needs to be an Ubuntu-Edge distribution, that always has the latest software. Oh and I do like that Gnome is cleaner...

neighborlee
March 16th, 2005, 10:22 PM
I agree. I love my nice clean gnome desktop, I love my GTK apps, and I would love to have a replacement for K3B so I could get these dirty QT libs off my system.

http://zenhardwhere.com/images/glider.png
---------
just grab gnomebaker here:
-------
http://www.biddell.co.uk/gnomebaker.php

not sure how 'stable' or useable atm it is but...good luck as I'm going to try it too

cheers
nl
----

Dragonfly_X
March 18th, 2005, 08:13 AM
What r u using? KDE or GNOME?

I'm currently using GNOME on Hoary but I'm gonna install KDE today!

bored2k
March 18th, 2005, 08:16 AM
What r u using? KDE or GNOME?

I'm currently using GNOME on Hoary but I'm gonna install KDE today!
What desktop? my desktop , what else.

Desktop Environment ? Gnome/XFcE 4.2

This has been asked though ..

Slapdash
March 18th, 2005, 08:29 AM
I was a KDE user with Mepis.

Now I'm on Gnome and Ubuntu.

Only good points I could discover that KDE has is. K3B and SMB2k <--- awesome little utillity for SAMBA.

Not trying to put a this vs that thing on again by the way. just my experience.

Dragonfly_X
March 18th, 2005, 08:31 AM
What desktop? my desktop , what else.

Desktop Environment ? Gnome/XFcE 4.2

This has been asked though ..

Excuse the mistake?!? :!:

bored2k
March 18th, 2005, 08:32 AM
What r u using? KDE or GNOME?

I'm currently using GNOME on Hoary but I'm gonna install KDE today!
Where are Enlightenment, Blackbox, Fluxbox, Blackbox, Waimea, CLI ! ?

Dylanby
March 18th, 2005, 01:23 PM
Instead of another DE poll, why not do a do a WM poll as suggested? Or a WM/file manager combo poll.

lao_V
March 18th, 2005, 01:28 PM
This has already been done before here (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=14854)
And the file manager one has been done here (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=19924)

Maybe this one needs to be asked again once the Kubuntu is released in April and has got its own thread/forum??!

kagou
March 18th, 2005, 02:22 PM
Gnome of course =D>

`Mrk
March 18th, 2005, 04:10 PM
I prefer Gnome.

jensyt
March 18th, 2005, 04:31 PM
Um, neither?

XFCE for life! :D

acascianelli
March 18th, 2005, 05:12 PM
Gnome, i never did care much for QT anyway.

Dragonfly_X
March 18th, 2005, 08:22 PM
Does anybody have screenshots of Enlightenment :-k

bored2k
March 18th, 2005, 08:32 PM
Does anybody have screenshots of Enlightenment :-k
Videos

http://www.rasterman.com/files/e17_movie-02.avi
http://www.rasterman.com/files/e17_movie-03.avi
http://enlightenment.org/index.php?session=b67d90ce71&id=9&select=ePortal

jwb
March 18th, 2005, 09:02 PM
My desktop is kinda a thin wood veneer, glued to some piece of metal that makes up the desktop. I don't think it's real wood. It may be fake wood. It could be pine or oak, but it sure ain't mornin'.

It is real smooth, and I keep it very clean and paper free so I can see it when i am not looking at other things, like my coffee cup or the wall or something else.

bored2k
March 18th, 2005, 09:04 PM
My desktop is kinda a thin wood veneer, glued to some piece of metal that makes up the desktop. I don't think it's real wood. It may be fake wood. It could be pine or oak, but it sure ain't mornin'.

It is real smooth, and I keep it very clean and paper free so I can see it when i am not looking at other things, like my coffee cup or the wall or something else.
LoL

Dragonfly_X
March 18th, 2005, 09:27 PM
Videos

http://www.rasterman.com/files/e17_movie-02.avi
http://www.rasterman.com/files/e17_movie-03.avi
http://enlightenment.org/index.php?session=b67d90ce71&id=9&select=ePortal

I like what i see! Thanx for the vids.

lao_V
March 22nd, 2005, 05:34 PM
With Kubuntu being released independently of Ubuntu and being listed as a seperate distro at distrowatch, I would like to know if your preference.

Would you continue using Ubuntu or do you like Kubuntu better? Or do you think Ubutnu/Kubuntu should be a single distro?

IdoMcFly
March 22nd, 2005, 05:38 PM
One distro, with a choice in the installer something like:
Choose the Graphical Environment:
Gnome - blabla description
KDE - blabla description

if you don't know just hit enter (and then install Gnome as it was the first approach of Ubuntu).

lao_V
March 22nd, 2005, 05:40 PM
My thoughts exactly, as I mentioned in #6 here (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=20715)

bored2k
March 22nd, 2005, 05:48 PM
One distro, with a choice in the installer something like:
Choose the Graphical Environment:
Gnome - blabla description
KDE - blabla description

if you don't know just hit enter (and then install Gnome as it was the first approach of Ubuntu).
I do not like this idea . It is best for them to keep focusing on an environment and tweak it to near perfection like they are doing . Plus you would need several discs to have something like this, and then you would need to include flux , E and such . If UBuntu is more or less aimed at attracting people from other OS camps, havng them choose a such a crucial decision is not good IMO . If I know nothing about them, no description would explain this.

this thread aims to be a kde vs gnome cover up :-P .

fibster
March 22nd, 2005, 05:52 PM
Personally I prefer Gnome it's just more appealing to me. Kde has a lot of useful items and eye candy but I've used suse for years and since switching to ubuntu I've grown to love the simplicity of gnome.

have a great day mates,

tb

Buffalo Soldier
March 22nd, 2005, 06:02 PM
I do not like this idea . It is best for them to keep focusing on an environment and tweak it to near perfection like they are doing . Plus you would need several discs to have something like this, and then you would need to include flux , E and such . If UBuntu is more or less aimed at attracting people from other OS camps, havng them choose a such a crucial decision is not good IMO . If I know nothing about them, no description would explain this.

this thread aims to be a kde vs gnome cover up :-P .

Bored2k, you may seem bored... but your eyes and mind are sharp as a hawk :)

Anyway, I agree 100% with bored2k. A distrubution should only focus on 1 desktop environment. And put a concentrated effort on that desktop environment. Doesn't matter if it's KDE, GNOME, XFCE or anything.

But I would continue supporting GNOME. Reason? Not gonna give any technical reason. Cause honestly I don't know any and don't try to act like I know. But what I do know is I like the simple boring dull GNOME :)

ions
March 22nd, 2005, 06:18 PM
Keep them seperate!! Please! I have no interest in KDE and that includes downloading the additional data I would never use. Don't want it. The addition of the Kubuntu project honestly has me concerned about the future quality of the Ubuntu project itself.

dusu
March 22nd, 2005, 06:19 PM
I do not think having two separated versions of Ubuntu, namely Ubuntu and KUbuntu is a problem, for the following reasons:

i) it's a fact that there are two main Desktop environments, Gnome and KDE, so that a distribution with the goals that Ubuntu has, should provide both.
It should also avoid to provide any Desktop, because the same kind of arguments would lead to providing any program whatsoever...
ii) any one can take a decision of what Desktop to install, before he/she actually performs the install .
After performing the large step which is to come to the linux world, any one can make the small step to choose a Desktop !
There is thus no special need to provide both KDE and Gnome in one unified distribution
iii) some people worry because in distrowatch, the "split" Ubuntu/KUbuntu could do some arm to the stats...
Of course distrowatch is a nice tool, but it just gives some infos.
And anyway, Ubuntu is not nice because it's written somewhere that it's nice !! Ubuntu is nice because it is nice :mrgreen:

As for the question Gnome/KDE, I'll stick to Gnome now that I've got it installed (and I anyway have KDE at my working place !)

ember
March 22nd, 2005, 06:21 PM
I hope Ubuntu will still mainly focus on GNOME, because I think it is wise to focus on a single desktop enviroment. And I chose Ubuntu because of it's stylish and pretty well integrated Gnome-Desktop, so it would be a pity if that advantage went away.
I don't mind having Kubuntu as an Ubuntu spinoff, but I don't think it should become more than that.

kassetra
March 22nd, 2005, 06:32 PM
Would you continue using Ubuntu or do you like Kubuntu better? Or do you think Ubutnu/Kubuntu should be a single distro?

One of the things that makes Ubuntu so great is the single Desktop Environment approach. The last thing most users need is a bloated, 4-disc install that takes 2 hours and lots of mind-glazing questions.

Think of it this way. I want to make a pitcher of Koolaid. If I follow the instructions exactly, I get flavored sugar water. If I don't add the whole two quarts of water, and maybe not an entire cup of sugar, I get a more intense flavor in my flavored sugar water. If I add a gallon of water instead of the two quarts that the instructions say to add, I get watered-down, very little flavored sugar water.
That is how distributions work.

Debian = making Koolaid according to the instructions. You get flavored sugar water.

Ubuntu = a more intensely flavored Debian. heh.

Most other distributions, (including the idea of combining Ubuntu/Kubuntu) = watered down Koolaid.

The more you add to a distribution, the less of a "flavor" you get. Ubuntu and Kubuntu should stay separate distributions.

ember
March 22nd, 2005, 06:44 PM
I should add this one to the list of my infamous camparisons I use in philosophical discussions ;) ... it more or less expresses exactly what I think about distributions that want to fullfill every need and therefore fail.

bored2k
March 22nd, 2005, 06:47 PM
One of the things that makes Ubuntu so great is the single Desktop Environment approach. The last thing most users need is a bloated, 4-disc install that takes 2 hours and lots of mind-glazing questions.

Think of it this way. I want to make a pitcher of Koolaid. If I follow the instructions exactly, I get flavored sugar water. If I don't add the whole two quarts of water, and maybe not an entire cup of sugar, I get a more intense flavor in my flavored sugar water. If I add a gallon of water instead of the two quarts that the instructions say to add, I get watered-down, very little flavored sugar water.
That is how distributions work.

Debian = making Koolaid according to the instructions. You get flavored sugar water.

Ubuntu = a more intensely flavored Debian. heh.

Most other distributions, (including the idea of combining Ubuntu/Kubuntu) = watered down Koolaid.

The more you add to a distribution, the less of a "flavor" you get. Ubuntu and Kubuntu should stay separate distributions.
rofL this is probably the sickest debian comparison I have ever heard lol .

Debian = Kool Aid
Oh my word lol .

mike998
March 22nd, 2005, 06:55 PM
One distro, with a choice in the installer something like:
Choose the Graphical Environment:
Gnome - blabla description
KDE - blabla description

if you don't know just hit enter (and then install Gnome as it was the first approach of Ubuntu).

Given that Kubuntu has it's own development team, this is probably going to be the sanest method. I have always prefered Gnome but with the big kerfuffle about KDE 3.4 I am considering giving Kubuntu a try.

The only problem I have with the whole Kubuntu issue is the weakening of the Ubuntu brand. Other than that, the whole thing with Open Source is choice. Let's allow people to have those choices!