Desktop Environment / Window Manager Preference/Comparison Thread

[TravisNewman]

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]

"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]

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]

"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]

QT Open Source license
http://www.trolltech.com/products/qt/opensource.html

[az]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.../msg00005.html

http://packages.debian.org/cgi-bin/s...ll&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/...es/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....