The Fine Print: The following comments
are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
Re: Desktop look...
by andrew on Friday 08/Feb/2002, @17:05
|
*sigh*. Your comments are not constructive, and you sound like a troll. Does bashing GNOME somehow make you feel better? KDE is a great desktop (kudos to the developers), but your attitude sucks.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Desktop look...
by Ian Reinhart Geiser on Friday 08/Feb/2002, @18:22
|
/me was not the one who DOSed the cvs server.
besides i am bringing up the same UI braindamages over and over again... the GNOMES just lacked the skill to ever fix them. secondly i dont see your name in any cvs commits ;)
-ian reinhart geiser
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Desktop look...
by Chris Conrad on Friday 08/Feb/2002, @19:09
|
And the KDE project lacked the skill to make a component system on top of CORBA that performed fast enough. Btw, the file dialog, along with most other nitpicks that people had about Gtk+ have been fixed in Gtk 2.
(And if your comments show how the KDE project is "professional", I'm gonna make sure that I remove the professionalism from my work machine and just go back to being 1337)
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Desktop look...
by Ian Reinhart Geiser on Saturday 09/Feb/2002, @08:22
|
Eh?
KParts, DCOP?
Even the GNOMEs are considering to migrate to dcop and artsd because there ripoffs are so halfassed.
On the off chance you where a developer you would have known that almost everyone is ditching the CORBA approach. CORBA on the desktop is silly and quite useless.
DCOP is what you need when you need it, and KParts are far more flexable than anything that monkey business has come up with.
And as for the file dialog, well... As the GNOMEs try to get their 2.0 release out the door, KDE will be releaseing yet a more advanced toolkit. Meanwhile the GNOMES are looking at just porting to .NET.... silly monkeys :)
cheers
-ian reinhart geiser
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Desktop look...
by Troll Nick on Sunday 10/Feb/2002, @08:59
|
>Even the GNOMEs are considering to migrate to dcop and artsd because there ripoffs are so halfassed.
Erm, they are...proof please (about dcop, not the artsd thing)
> DCOP is what you need when you need it, and KParts are far more flexable than
> anything that monkey business has come up with.
DCOP is what you need when you need it. Wow. Thats deep.
And actually, bonobo is the more powerful of the two. KParts is a way to embed things inside other things. Bonobo is a full component system including compound documents, printing, control embedding, remote activation, guiless components.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Desktop look...
by KDE User on Sunday 10/Feb/2002, @09:34
|
No less than Miguel has praised and advocated adoption of DCOP by GNOME.
Check your own GNOME mail archives.
As for Bonobo pretty much every email I've read about it on the GNOME lists is critical. Miguel doesn't like it, Red Hat doesn't like it. The only people trying to support it are the morons like that Uranus guy who don't have the faintest idea what it's all about, and the well-respected Ximian hackers who have had to work on it.
Bonobo HAS been ruled OUT as a solution for local components on GNOME. Inform yourself.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Desktop look...
by Chris Conrad on Sunday 10/Feb/2002, @21:55
|
Umm, yes there is a lot of people in the Gnome project that criticize Bonobo. But I haven't heard anyone suggest replacing it with something else. The criticism helps make Bonobo better. If everyone dislikes it (as you so claim) why is it that every gnome project is starting to use Bonobo now?
Unless you have actual links, use KDE and stop spreading mistruths about Gnome.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Desktop look...
by KDE User on Monday 11/Feb/2002, @05:14
|
The GNOME project has been "starting to use Bonobo" for years now. Just because they made big press releases about Bonobo in the past and are quiet about it now, doesn't that tell you something? Bonobo is one of the main reasons for the whole Mono (Ximian) and Hub (Red Hat) debacles.
Formally they are quite sneaky about it:
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-hackers/2001-September/msg00107.html
Informally, you get a whole different story on Bonobo. PSST try to use Bonobo and then come back to me and tell me it's the best thing since sliced bread.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Desktop look...
by Bob on Monday 11/Feb/2002, @05:42
|
Conclusions about bonobo:
Use bonobo for what its meant to be used
Don't use bonobo for stupid things.
Wow.
I find bonobo simple to use. I can knock together a full bonobo component in an hour or so, less if it's a simple one that.
Hub does not exist, it's just an idea.
Mono does not (as yet) replace bonobo, and it's reason for existing is not to replace bonobo, and never was. It's main reason is that Miguel liked C# and wanted to program in it.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Desktop look...
by ac on Monday 11/Feb/2002, @09:20
|
Right. An hour. Wow. Next you will start babbling about "monikers" and nobody will know what you are talking about...
Like Miguel said, Mono allows you get rid of all the previous ugly COM/ActiveX/CORBA/Bonobo technology in a nice way.
That link is sure a sneaky way of saying Bonobo sucks. Yeah, use it for coarse interfaces and out-of-process components. That's a sure smaller field than when it was supposed to be the end-all be-all of component technology on Unix.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Desktop look...
by bob on Monday 11/Feb/2002, @17:35
|
> Right. An hour. Wow. Next you will start babbling about "monikers" and nobody
> will know what you are talking about...
Nope, no idea what monikers are.
I've written trivial bonobo components in under 100 lines of code, most of that being boilerplate code. Any more complex components need more code, but the bonobo bit stays the same length. Just because you're not smart enough to work it out, doesn't mean it's hard.
Use it for out-of-process components. Use it for in-process components as well. Just don't use it for stupid things that it doesn't need to be used for.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Desktop look...
by Ian Reinhart Geiser on Monday 11/Feb/2002, @19:57
|
hrm... dcop is about 3 lines...
and to export a dcop interface is about as large as a simple class file, maby 5 lines plus 1 line per interface. no silly monkies here...
to add insult to injury most dcop abilities are added to base classes so the features flow all of the way up. silly monkeys dont know about inheritance so they have to add the same feature to every application, where kde adds it to 1 and it becomes available everywhere.
oh and btw, you get all of this for about 150 extra K per application these are added to. i dont even want to know how much corba bloats it by.
if i had never coded with bonobo i would give you a fighting chance, but you have to give up. you are out of your league here.
hugs and kisses
-ian reinhart geiser
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Desktop look...
by Bob on Tuesday 12/Feb/2002, @06:48
|
To use a bonobo component, it's a line for the simplest.
To export a bonobo interface it's "about as large as a simple class file".
Wow, DCOP is amazing, its the same. Bonobo is simply more powerful, simply because DCOP is not a component system, whereas Bonobo is. Oh...
You really are an asshole, and you are exactly the reasons I don't use KDE. Asshole developers, who flame gnome at every oppurtunity. Notice that this entire flamewar was started by yourself.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Desktop look...
by me on Tuesday 12/Feb/2002, @08:38
|
WOW!!! he's an asshole cause he's right!!!
glad you don't use kde. we can do without morons like you.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Desktop look...
by Chris Conrad on Tuesday 12/Feb/2002, @14:01
|
He's an asshole because he's an asshole; either he does not know Bonobo or he's deliberatly lying about it to make it sound bad. And calling people morons for having a different opinion then yours a) makes you look bad and b) certainly does not encourage people who otherwise might be interested in helping out the KDE project.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Desktop look...
by Chexsum on Saturday 21/Dec/2002, @05:37
|
Ive heard news about KDE developers being morons and now Ive now seen proof from the first list Ive seen - haha. Im glad I dont support KDE *I almost started supporting KDE but you guys are morons*!
BTW KDE docs suck - I found nothing about DCOPC and hardly anything about DCOP+KPanelApplets - I even ended up coming here via a google search. :(
Redhat is doing a good job with your desktop IMO. ;)
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Desktop look...
by Ian Reinhart Geiser on Tuesday 12/Feb/2002, @11:42
|
you yourself said you could do it in 100 lines... now you say 1 line... something tells me bonobo dont scale well... prolly because it dosent.
as for DCOP not being a component system, well that is because KParts will do that. you see there is no reason to have to use a CORBA just to read a simple string from a running application. hence dcop. But the nice thing about dcop is you can pass complex objects through it.
once you get to widgets, then you move on to KParts, again unlike bonobo, these integrate completely into the application, in process. This is used for embedding complex objects into applications, again, the most complex instance of this is about 5 lines both ways, namely because you need a factory to create the instance.
now if you are really crafty and want to control the application from the application itself, aka scripting extentions, you can use plugins or KScript.
Gnome made the mistake of wrapping the whole mess together. The only plus side of this is you only have to learn one API, but then you get locked in to one API, and it limits what you want to do.
as for this "flamewar", i have facts to back up what i am saying. i was not the troll who decided to share his lack of understanding of not only KParts/DCOP but bonobo too. i am just blowing time during compiles...
:)
-ian reinhart geiser
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Desktop look...
by KDE User on Tuesday 12/Feb/2002, @13:11
|
That was an informative reply to a low-brow flame. Thanks.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Desktop look...
by Chris Conrad on Tuesday 12/Feb/2002, @13:59
|
That was not an informative reply. It was riddled with errors. That reply was written by someone who seemingly does not know the capabilities of Bonobo.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Desktop look...
by Chris Conrad on Tuesday 12/Feb/2002, @13:56
|
If instead of blowing time during compiles criticizing something that you really don't seem very informed about, you read a little to see what was going on, you might not be pissing people off the way you are.
Creating a bonobo control requires one line of code (and does not require modifying the widget at all):
control = bonobo_control_new (widget);
That is the case when you're dealing with a widget. If you're creating a bonobo control which is not widget based, you instantiate a class descending from BonoboObject and return that. In the case of a control, it takes one line. In other cases, it requires some boilerplate code to instantiate everything and the code for the class.
I have no idea what you're talking about when you refer to bonobo scaling. You can create as large or as small a component as you want. Most large Gnome applications are nothing but Bonobo controls and containers (Evolution and Nautilus are that way right now, Galeon is moving in that direction). Gnome Panel 2 applets are just little bonobo controls.
Bonobo is a full featured component model. There is nothing that you can't do in it. The API is not limiting because the Bonobo API is really just used for component creation. The component's API is designed by the component developer.
As to the rest of your post ... Bonobo works just fine in process, out of process or distributed. Obviously it's easier to debug out of process components, but that doesn't mean that it's the only way to write them. Bonobo also uses factories for component creation and requires just a handful of lines of code to create one.
So, what is it that you would like Bonobo to do that it doesn't? And why do you need to continually bash these things when you don't even seem to understand them?
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Desktop look...
by Ian Reinhart Geiser on Tuesday 12/Feb/2002, @16:01
|
You are missing the point, although this could be because you have no clue about OO design. You are mixing up thing very well, so I will review:
KParts - Component System
KParts-plugins - Feature addons to applications
DCOP - remote process messageing system
Where bonobo fails is it tries to be both, at least from where the how-tos lead you to belive. My point is for remote messageing bonobois bloated, and for doing stuff like widget embedding bonobo is adiquate, but horribly object disorented.
The largest problem with bonobo is evident from your example. I mean how do you message back to the plugin? How do you control it? Well the answer is to use bonobo, but then you have the overhead of building more interfaces... With KParts you can just base your component off of a base class and you have access there, low coupleing (and OOD term). Ideally you could hack this with bonobo i think, but I am not a C wizzard. I understand that you have limits because of design, but really at that point shouldnt you be fixing your design? Now I admit for component embedding bonobo is okay, if you are familiar with C, but for messageing between applicaitons I think there are much better ways.
Now I have to admit I have not touched bonobo in about a year so I cannot vouch for Gnome2, but that is still a beta at this point, I am talking todays reality. I also do not doubt the abilites of bonobo, but there is something to be said for ease of use, and flexability of development. I mean I can do anything I want with Xlib, so why use QT or GTK?
-ian reinhart geiser
p.s. the thread started with DCOP vs Bonobo for messageing. KParts vs Bonobo is a much more fare fight.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Desktop look...
by Chris Conrad on Tuesday 12/Feb/2002, @19:19
|
I'm not missing any point, nor do I have the slightest problem with OO design or methodologies.
Now, if you actually used Bonobo, the way you talk to a component is self evident; they expose their methods. There are several different helper API's already built into Bonobo (including PropertyBags for exposing set/get methods for the properties of an object as well as an EventSource/EventListener API). Any other API's are defined by the object (I'm currently writing a Bonobo component to embed CD Burning support into any Gnome application and it exposes methods for scanning the SCSI bus for devices, etc). Now, every Bonobo object is based off BonoboXObject or one of it's descendants (this uses either GtkObject in Gnome 1 and GObject in Gnome 2 ... tho I am not going to debate the merits of OO in C).
As to ease of use and flexibility of development, I have had no problems learning or using Bonobo to develop components. Many large applications use Bonobo today, and many more (mostly any application of substance from the way it looks) will use it in Gnome2.
When it comes to DCOP vs Bonobo, I don't think there is much to talk about. As far as I can tell they are meant for totally different things. Bonobo is a general purpose component system. There are components today for handling printers, communicating with databases, etc. I wouldn't have even piped up if a) you weren't mindlessly bashing gnome and b) spreading hugely inaccurate information about Bonobo.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Desktop look...
by Mike Roch on Friday 28/Jun/2002, @08:37
|
I don't know why your so ugly maybe it just runs in the family.succer
poopoo
0KB (0 bytes)
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Desktop look...
by bob on Monday 11/Feb/2002, @05:48
|
> No less than Miguel has praised and advocated adoption of DCOP by GNOME.
> Check your own GNOME mail archives.
Yup, I did. All I could find was this reply.
>> In fact, comparing DCOP to Bonobo at all is laughable, DCOP is not
>> even a component model.
>
> For Automation it hardly matters. DCOP is a pretty good tool, sure we
> can have one, but not with the broken component naming scheme we have.
Now, yes, he said it's a "pretty good tool", but I don't see anywhere where he "advocated adoption of DCOP by GNOME".
If you have any better links, please show us.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Desktop look...
by ac on Monday 11/Feb/2002, @09:14
|
The first search result for DCOP was this:
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-hackers-readonly/2001-July/msg00115.html
I want to add two things:
* This should at least happen on the 2.x platform, not 1.x
anyways. (I know its obvious, but wanted to make sure we
are on the same page).
* Maybe it is time for us to integrate DCOP as a messaging
bus, and use a DCOP event and keep gnome-session intact (for
the reasons explained by Havoc)
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Desktop look...
by ik on Sunday 10/Feb/2002, @09:37
|
this is absurd. dcop is very much QT specific, so it would be almost impossible to switch to dcop for gnome.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Desktop look...
by KDE User on Sunday 10/Feb/2002, @10:07
|
No, the protocol is not Qt specific. Even the marshalling of Qt data types has been documented, so it would be easy to remove any Qt dependencies.
Using DCOP in GNOME is a real possibility. However the people willing to do anything about it, are now pre-occupied with cloning .NET for GNOME.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Desktop look...
by Ian Reinhart Geiser on Sunday 10/Feb/2002, @19:17
|
silly monky lover, dcopc is written in gtk, even the Windowmaker guys are looking seriously at it.
cheers
-ian reinhart geiser
p.s. yes, this was a troll, you are finally getting entertaining.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Desktop look...
by ac on Sunday 10/Feb/2002, @20:11
|
Can't you give it a rest? This is not slashdot, although it seems like it now :-(
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Desktop look...
by Ian Reinhart Geiser on Sunday 10/Feb/2002, @19:18
|
silly monky lover, dcopc is written in gtk, even the Windowmaker guys are looking seriously at it.
cheers
-ian reinhart geiser
p.s. yes, this was a troll, you are finally getting entertaining.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
|
The Fine Print: The previous
comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
|
![[KDE Dot News]](http://www.kde.org/dot/Images/kdedotnews.gif)
