[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Discussion vs. consideration (of KDE/KIllustrator)

Orn E. Hansen wrote:
> Since you said "everyone", I'll put in my 2 cents worth.
>   I cannot for the life of me, see any gain in one more library project,
> not one bit.  And as everybody knows, I'm not very convinced about the
> GNOME project either.  Personally, I see it as just one more project
> bubble in the Linux community... where everybody seems exited, but one
> that will burst into nothing long before it ever gets anywhere.
FreeQT in my opinion has only to exist in order to be worthwhile.  Why ?
The only real danger with QT Libs as far as it's license goes is if BG
saw a danger and bought Troll Tech, then did 1 of 3 things.
1 : made QT as stable as Visual Basic
2 : Gave QT a Motif stile license with a higher price tag.
3 : Stooped producing QT.
either way KDE would be left to work with the last free version of QT
or with a replacement they make.  The existence of Harmony simply proves 
that if push came to shove QT could be replaced.  There is no need to 
replace it since it is correctly free enough for Linux.  Free QT in this 
case works as a deterrent.  Troll Tech will not change the license
doing so will simply see QT met by a competitor that can match it.
M$ will not buy Troll because that is no longer an effective method of
killing QT or KDE and it certainly won't slow down Linux.  
By this logic Harmony is like a really good cop.  It has rendered itself 
unnecessary.  However we still need to work on it and move it along to 
maintain FreeQT as a real threat.
>   There are a lot of these projects out there, already... instead of the
> GTK library, why not support the LessTif project? It provides source code
> compatibility with Motif, and it too is in need of widget programmers?  I
> mean, anyone who is going to use Unix style computers for anything
> (including
I won't mention GTK vs *tif since the benefits of GTK are a little fogy 
to me. ( I haven't read the docs but I here it's as fast as QT ) 
QT/KDE is worthwhile simply because it provides a 
significant speed boost over *tif.  Try running CDE on a Pentium with 
64 Megs then take out 1/2 the RAM and install KDE and watch it outrun
> moi), is going to get themselves motif... so, supporting a free motif clone
> that enables you to use all those motif applications already available, is
> a great advantage.  But, instead, people make a FreeQt project, and then a
> GTK++ project, and a god knows what else.  There simply isn't place for all
> of them...
True a lot of it is redundant, and a lot of it is ego trip.  But hey
is getting paid so all Linux programers just do what they feel like :)
>   And more over, on the subject of GNOME and KDE... the Qt library is free
> enough to use it in any free Linux distribution.  It is free for personal
> use, and I don't see that as a problem.  Unless people are going to make
> *free* Linux distribution, that is going to be used for _commercial_
> porposes, which I find disturbingly inapropriate... because for such
> purposes, people should pay the licencing fee.
Actually QT is even freer ( real word ? ) than you think.  The ONLY
who has to pay for QT is the DEVELOPER who writes an application with QT
and sells it commercially.  This means that a company that dose an
custom application in QT dose not pay.  a kid who dose GPL software dose
not pay.  You only pay if you are selling, and logically then paying
a problem since the 1st 10 copies that go out the door cover that cost
( assuming the program is cheep )
>   Of all of these projects, KDE has gone the farthest... mostly because the
> library it uses, is the most complete.  And basically, it only needs to veed
> out the major bugs and then it is a ready desktop.  For GNOME, it is a far
> bigger path to walk, before it even becomes useful... so, in ernest I see
> most of these project splattering as foolishness.  None of them are ever
> going to be anything, because everybody is working against another.
I try not to say this since nobody listens anyway.  Right now the only 
1 in danger from KDE is surprisingly RedHat.  Why ?  Because if SEUS
has any marketing sense it will time the release of version 6.0 with the
release of KDE 1.0 and if possible ( this is more likely than you think
Linux 2.2.0  
They could then flood the market with a desktop that can challenge
Windows 98
in appearance, Windows NT it functionality and CDE in raw power.  In
words they could become the #1 Linux distributor overnight ( #1 in terms
units shipped and $$ collected )
>   Meanwhile, there already is a new Motif 2.1 and CDE 2.1 out there.  A new
> concept glued together... and all the Linux community can think of, is to
> hammer together thousands of projects that are trying to build a Windows 95
> style start button... which already exists in fvwm95.  A new GTK free window
> manager, which we already have a dozen of... and one more file manager.
fvwm95 ?  I still have it on my system but I NEVER use it.  want to know 
why ?  It looks like Windows 95 ( sortof ) but it isn't very pretty.
It has the power of X beneath it, but it isn't very easy.  Yes fvwm was
the best out there last year ( at that price :),  This year it is #2
(and then by a huge margin ) behind KDE.  GNOME doesn't work yet so it
not fare to mention it in this context.
>   The only thing, that is really worth noticing is the CORBA part.  Which, 
> I don't think should be discussed, but rather a small group should get
> together
> and just create a RFC style document that would be dispersed around the
> major groups and made available on the Internet.  Which would basically
> state, *this
> is the environment we expect Linux application to comply with*.  Now that is
> what we need... we need to define the environment and backbone on which our
> applications are to exist, and work within.  We need to define a Desktop
> environment API... and please, don't mention GNOME... because gnome isn't
> it.
I may be wrong here ( somebody correct me if I am ) but I think the KDE
and the GNOME teem have had discussion on this issue and have hammered
out a 
few standards that should see apps from both camps interacting.  Once
is accepted as logical it's a small step to simply inform everybody else 
that this is what you should write towards.  The beauty of Linux is that
someone misses the standard through lack of skill or time other are
to fix his app and submit a diff to the author.
The standard has already been implemented in KDE and is coming to GNOME
it is simply in need of publicity. and a name change.

"Through the firewall, out the router, down the T1, across the
backbone, bounced from satellite, Nothing but net."