MAY
31
2002

KDE 3.0.1 Ported to MacOS X and Darwin

The Fink project, which
"wants to bring the full world of Unix
Open Source software to
Darwin and
Mac OS X
", has
announced the
successful port of KDE 3.0.1 to the platform.
The package list for the initial release includes a great part of the KDE
core distribution, including Konqueror
(screenshot). Importantly, it also includes both
KOffice
(screenshot)
and KDevelop, as well as
kio_fish and, you guessed
it, the Liquid style.
Hopefully they can resolve the linker/libtool issues which are responsible
for the rather large size of the binary packages.
Nevertheless, a number of Fink project members have reported successfully
using KDE on their Mac OS for several weeks. Congratulations to the
Fink team!

Comments

I have a lot of friends who run macosx, and they are constantly looking for new unix software to install through XDarwin and fink. This will probably be the first thing they download now :)

Go fink.


By fault at Fri, 2002/05/31 - 5:00am

I just download and installed KDE from fink. I am running a TiBook 550 with OS 10.1.3, and all I can say is that KDE runs like an absolute dog as of right now. On the fink web site it talks about the slow dynamic library loader for KDE. This is absolutely true.

The X on X program, which allows you to run X-Window System apps rootless ontop of Mac OS X, loads on my machine to a window-managerless terminal in about 5 seconds.

The KDE startup sequence takes approximately 80-90 seconds to load to the point where your basic desktop is running. Each app you launch after that takes another 30+ seconds to load. In many cases the KDE blinking cursor times out after it default setting of 30 seconds. Konq takes approximately 60 seconds to load the first time, and each time you wish to open a new browser window is takes at least 30 seconds.

I of course understand that this is beta software. KDE (specifically Kdevelop) is one of the main reasons I used to have linux on my tibook, and I would love to be able to use kdevelop next to all of my os x apps. In addition, I use MS Office and Excel extensively, and it would be great to how much Kspread could support my spreadsheet needs.

As a side note, debian has still not released XFree 4.2 in packaged binary form yet, which means my radeon mobility requires I make World for XFree. Anyone who has or has tried to maintain two different XFree trees, one packaged and one compiled, knows it is easier to just use the distrib package.

Now, fink lets me use my favorite linux apps (KDE + kdevelop) under Xfree 4.2 under Mac OS X. Who woulda thunk? It just needs a little fine tuning.


By Ian Zepp at Sat, 2002/06/01 - 5:00am

qt-3.0.4 slows down kde monstrously in ppc linux (at least that's what we've found at Gentoo), so this may be the problem here too. Hopefully Trolltech will fix the problem, and kde will be viable on OSX too.


By daybird at Sat, 2002/06/01 - 5:00am

it would be great if KDE ran outside of X11 on OS-X, QT does already. So things like konqueror and koffice could be just another OS_X applicaction.


By james brown at Sat, 2002/06/01 - 5:00am

it would be great if someone were to port qt/x11 to cocoa or carbon

(or simply port libX11 more directly than XDarwin does, which would be a lot easier than above)


By fault at Sun, 2002/06/02 - 5:00am

As an alternative to kspread, OpenOffice also runs under Mac OS X now, at least partially. Give it a try www.openoffice.org

Erik


By Erik at Wed, 2002/06/05 - 5:00am

the fink faq should be updated (Q3.6: Why are there no packages for KDE?)


By fault at Fri, 2002/05/31 - 5:00am

IE & Konqi in the same window?

That's just _wrong_.

The apocolypse will soon be upon us.


By ac at Fri, 2002/05/31 - 5:00am

Now why on earth does one of the screenshots (kde3-thesin-gimp.html) show a screenie I took on my machine? (xine-xdirectfb.png) [Not a MacOS X box, nor particularly KDE related]


By Damocles at Sat, 2002/06/01 - 5:00am

Heh...

TheSin (Justin Hallett, the guy who made the screenshot) is the maintainer of xine on fink. He probably happened to have it open.


By Ranger Rick at Sat, 2002/06/01 - 5:00am

You did well. I am running linux apps on linux now and mac os x apps on mac os x.The bsd kernel had turned into an inferno for me when I ran linux apps on my cube. Don't ask me to choose I love them both Mac OS X (BSD) and linux. But I prefer KDE 3.0 on linux kernel...besides my screen can only hold so much at one time. KDE, Gnome, Mac OS X etc.. all on the same sceen ( I know you can boot into full screen mode but the video is poor at 16mb ) so for me it is to yaboot or not. See you in GPL heaven and cheers to you !!!

Rod Ross :)


By Rod Ross (myXtie) at Sat, 2002/06/01 - 5:00am

For a thousand times I have restrained myself from commenting on the "Liquid" style or others of its kind. Apple's popular Aqua interface has inspired numurious computer artists to clone or imitate it on non-Mac platforms, even though some of them may find it hard to admit so. If you have ever been introduced to the Windows customization community, you must have seen dozens of Aqua-like themes (named either "aqua" or "liquid"). I myself contributed to some of the most popular and highest quailty ones before I switched to Linux as my primary OS. The Liquid style on KDE, well I hate to say this, does not even compare to half of the similar themes for Windows. But it's the only thing for Linux. Therefore no complaint about that. Now someone is daring enough to put it on Mac OS X, so that the rest of the world could share our taste of cheap art. Sorry for being so mean, but I couldn't help thinking the screenshots of "Liquid" on OS X as the ugliest thing ever happened to a Mac, which has always been appreciated for its pure innovative beauty. Porting KDE to Mac OS X is a BRILLIANT thing. But pleeeeeeeeeease leave the "Liquid" style behind. Don't embarass yourself. If there's something we can learn from Apple, the that is: simplicity is beauty; originality is beauty. My favorite KDE style: Light 3rd with ModSystem. I don't know whether they are "original" or not. But they surely are less embarassing then the "Liquid" style when appearing on Mac OS X.


By Felix at Sat, 2002/06/01 - 5:00am

Okay, you said that you wrote some of the most popular themes for Windows. Where are they? Which ones? Where is the archive and what are the download stats?

None of the Windows themes come close to Liquid because they *can't*. They are simple Pixmap themes. They can't even handle color schemes, alphablending, or proper pixmap alignment! Much less all the other customization available in Liquid such as stipple opacity, toolbar button style, etc... Liquid is a lot more advanced than any of the Aqua styles for Windows, which are simple collections of pixmaps. Your talking out your rear.

Liquid is a lot more customizable than MacOS as well, now that I think about it :P I think it looks nicer, too, with my colorscheme :) Something you can't do on a mac.


By KLover at Sat, 2002/06/01 - 5:00am

Could you tell me what colorscheme that is? :o) I'm looking into changing mine..


By Verwilst at Sat, 2002/06/01 - 5:00am

I selected my own colors from KDE Control Center. Mess around with until you get something you like! Liquid is cool like that.


By KLover at Sun, 2002/06/02 - 5:00am

I know, but i was wondering what kind of scheme you've put together, so maybe i like it too :) I have a white/blue one, but just in case i'll ever get tired of it... :o)


By Verwilst at Sun, 2002/06/02 - 5:00am

Why do I inevitablly sense unforgiveable narrow-mindedness and unfounded arrogance whenever any positive comment about Windows appears in the Linux comminity???? I don't argue that KDE is superior in terms of flexibility of customization. But that doesn't make the Liquid theme superior in the aesthetic way. Use some Windows themes and try a real Mac; if you still believe the Liquid theme "looks nicer", well, I don't wanna argue with you about that. Art and beauty don't have any rationale. It's just your taste against mine.

As to your challenge, sorry but I won't tell about my Windows themes just to arouse a new round of the Windows vs Linux battle, which usually turns into hideous personal attacks. I still remember the cheap performance of some Linux fans in a Linux-on-the-desktop discussion at ZDNet. Don't get me wrong. I'm a Linux fan myself. But sometimes I do feel sorry for some part of the community that can't be objective about either others or themselves. Not long ago someone said the upcoming GNOME 2 would be even better than Max OS X. Let's wait and see. I hope the statement won't turn out to be too pathetic.

In case you haven't heard it, Apple issued a warning a couple of months ago against those Auqa style themes on non-Mac platforms, and as a result, some of the best Windows Aqua themes had to be pulled off the net.


By Felix at Sat, 2002/06/01 - 5:00am

Heh, I knew calling your bluff would show your a liar. You said you "contributed to some of the most popular and highest quailty" themes for Windows and when I call your bluff and ask you to specify which ones you won't do it, using the lame excuse that you don't want to start a flamewar, (nevermind your original post was a big flame). If you sit around bragging that you worked on some of the most popular themes for Windows but won't tell anyone which ones it makes you look like a big liar. Especially when in the context of putting down other people's work.

You also say "Sorry for being so mean, but I couldn't help thinking the screenshots of "Liquid" on OS X as the ugliest thing ever happened to a Mac, which has always been appreciated for its pure innovative beauty."

but in a later post say:

"Before I say the following words, let me make it clear that I have never owned a Mac and I'm a Linux user."

What a load of crap. Go away, troll. If you don't like Liquid just say you don't like it, but don't make things up and flame.


By KLover at Sun, 2002/06/02 - 5:00am

What a typical response! I have no interest at all in defending myself to YOU. However, since this post is viewed by other fair and reasonable readers, I feel obliged to say just a few more words.

No, I don't own a Mac. But I surely have used more than one Macs. What's confusing you here????

I don't have to tell you about my Windows themes because:
1) This is not about me or Windows themes.
2) This is about the Liquid theme and the original Aqua style from Apple.

My original post said just 3 things:
1) There're better themes than the Liquid theme.
2) I don't like the Liquid theme.
3) I don't think it wise to put the Liquid theme on Mac OS X.

Apparently I did lid some flame in you. But I didn't make anything up. As of those Windows themes (except mine), I've already told you about the copyright story. You may not find them easily now. I haven't used Windows for quite a while. I don't have the latest info for you.


By Felix at Sun, 2002/06/02 - 5:00am

1. I agree, there is better things than liquid, but in other people's minds, liquid is the best.
2. liquid wasn't meant to be an exact ripoff of aqua.. it's wholy c++ (no pixmaps)
3. liquid can do things that aqua can't (be colorized)


By fault at Sun, 2002/06/02 - 5:00am

All you said is true.

Why do people like the Liquid theme? Why was the Liquid theme ever created? The answer to both questions is: the Auqa interface from Apple. Include the Liquid theme in KDE for Mac? Maybe. Use it as the default style? Could really use some reconsideration.

The Liquid theme surely can do a lot more than the Aqua, such as colorization as you mentioned. However, there're people like me who don't like the Liquid theme at all, but I have never met a single person who is not attracted by the Aqua. Why? Let's look at another example. Dell had a laptop model which came with customizable color pads. It was cute and kind of impressive. Apple's PowerBook is all silver and its iBook is simply white. They can't be colorized. But people say their beauty is stunning. It probably took more effort for Dell to design those colorizable but less charming laptop cases. I guess that teaches us the truth about graphic appeal: simplicity often wins over complexity.


By Felix at Sun, 2002/06/02 - 5:00am

> Why do people like the Liquid theme? Why was the Liquid theme ever created? The answer to both questions is: the Auqa interface from Apple.

True, I think liquid (any many other things, such as Luna for winxp), were created because of aqua. If aqua had not existed, these themes would not have either.

> Include the Liquid theme in KDE for Mac? Maybe. Use it as the default style? Could really use some reconsideration.

Uh, who said it was default style? As far as I can tell, hicolor would be. However, IF liquid were to be made default, it would be logical since it looks aqua-like. It's always nice to have a desktop in which everything looks similiar.

> However, there're people like me who don't like the Liquid theme at all, but I have never met a single person who is not attracted by the Aqua.

I personally don't like liquid nor aqua. However, unlike you, I won't criticize the screenshot author for using either liquid or aqua. Neither do many, many, many, people. A lot of my friends who are die-hard mac users for over 15 years hated Aqua and still do. They say it completely detracts from the simplicity of human design elements that Apple worked to create all of this time.


By fault at Sun, 2002/06/02 - 5:00am

I've got an idea; how about everyone just stops this thread now.

We spent months porting an entire freakin' desktop environment to MacOS X, and it's spawned 30 comments about a theme I spent at most *10 minutes* building a Fink package for. It's no big deal. Liquid isn't the default. I just thought it would be funny to have it running in OSX. I rather like it, but I don't pretend it's a replacement for MacOS X's native style.

Chill out, people, there are much more important things to worry about.


By Ranger Rick at Sun, 2002/06/02 - 5:00am

Ranger Rick.

Thanks to you and the rest of the Fink team. I am a user! I appreciate the liquid theme, when I was running KDE rootless it helped blend the "looks" of the two desktops nicely but NOT to much. I just found it less visually jarring.

Now that Apple has an X11 I am running KDE less then before since I can set most of the KDE apps or for that matter the X11 unix based apps that I used, from the app menu of it.

I used KDE and still do because of all the Linux desktops it is the most pleasing to the eye. And the best orginized. Gnome looks garrish, and creepy. But thats a matter of taste.

But thanks again for all the work you and the team have done! I greatly appreciate it.


By Chris C at Mon, 2003/01/20 - 6:00am

You said:
However, there're people like me who don't like the Liquid theme at all, but I have never met a single person who is not attracted by the Aqua

Reply:
Um, no - you're the only one as far as I can tell. To me and most normal people, Aqua and the Liquid Theme have the same level of asthetic quality. The fact that Aqua is running on top of a propreitry, cumbersome, graphics API tied to other propreitry formats such as PDF, and not on the flexible, powerful QT platform tips the scales firmly in favour of KDE and the Liquid Theme.


By Liquid Theme Fan at Mon, 2002/06/03 - 5:00am

must....not...be...pedantic....

PDF is a proprietary format? Then how come there's Ghostscript and xpdf and everything? :)


By Feanor at Fri, 2002/06/21 - 5:00am

The fact that it is documented does not mean that it isn't proprietary. Adobe chose to publish specs for the PDF format in order to enhance its adoption. They didn't relinquish any of their rights by doing so.


By Gander at Sat, 2002/10/26 - 5:00am

Your original post:

1) Stated that you were a contributer to some of the most popular themes for Windows, (although you won't name any of them when people ask you to).

2) Proceeds to flame that Liquid doesn't even compare to half the Windows themes, when in actuality there is no comparison.

3) Says that it's an embarrasment to have running on MacOSX and lots of other nasty things.

Since then you've been backtracking the entire time, trying to come up with excuses why you can't tell anyone which themes you worked on and trying to sound more reasonable. Come on, even if you took down the themes if they were, as you state, some of the best for Windows google surely would have them cached or there would be some trace of it. But nooo, it must be a Secret. It's pretty obvious here your lying, but of course you can always prove me wrong, (and of course you won't). You won't even name the themes.

It's pretty obvious you probably never even used Liquid, either, since it really isn't much like MacOSX at all.

Oh well, enough time spent on the troll. If I were you I'd change your nick and try to start over, you've pretty much embarrassed yourself enough with your old one.


By KLover at Sun, 2002/06/02 - 5:00am

Mac costs money, lots of it compared to linux. Liquid is cool and free. I would love to try a mac, but do not know anyone who has it or would sponser me one, a loptop would be nice.


By once at Sat, 2002/06/01 - 5:00am

Go to an Apple Shop and play with it. It's really true: you can't compare Aqua with anything you've seen on Linux or on Windows or on anything else before.


By Michael Lehn at Mon, 2002/06/03 - 5:00am

I went to my local computer store and played with one of the new Apple iMacs. Look, it's not bad, and I suppose that for specific Apple-centric applications like Photoshop or Quicktime it's the best solution, but as for the interface? I didn't like it.

You can't compare the new-age look and feel of KDE, running on the flexible, powerful QT platform, to the clunky, slow, propreitry Aqua interface running on the new Apples. In the industry there is definitely a buzz about KDE. People who haven't even considered Unix on the desktop are taking a look at KDE and saying: "Hell, that's better than CDE, Windows 2K/XP and Apple Aqua combined!"


By Liquid Theme Fan at Mon, 2002/06/03 - 5:00am

Personally I think the look of Windows 3.1 or 95 is more usable than Aqua.


By fault at Mon, 2002/06/03 - 5:00am

Not a troll, it's true I prefer gnome and aqua instead of kde , it's personnal, I _DON'T want to convince anyone I"m right (or wrong :) ) ! but I would like to say some thoughts :

I personnally own a macintosh with OSX

yes Aqua/Cocoa/Quartz is proprietary, yes I prefere free software and the goal of the GNU project, BUT Cocoa API is very coherent et well designed, Objective C is a lot of more hmm "object" than C++ (I like object programming, so it's normal I like objective C ) , the feel of iTunes, Finder, Omniweb, and other typical aqua applications is so.. intuitive (for me)
Quartz (the window server) are many features X11 lacks (real alpha channel, composing and many visual effects) , yes it's proprietary software, but they are good ones.
ho but not all is perfect, for example Quartz doesn't have remote display like X11 (it's a shame for me :( )
It would be great if Quartz was GPLed :) but it's not, it's not a reason to do bashing.
kde or gnome people have to judge Aqua/Quartz on its own merits and default , not only its license.

other thing :
, I prefer gnome instead of kde (it's not important, it's only personnal taste ,technical and easthetics ones.. kde is great too, at works I show KDE to people , some people think KDE is better than gnome, it's perfectly fine for me, ok ? no flame ? ok :) ) and I think :

Aqua, Gnome, KDE all got many qualities and differences

I'm fond of the dock of Aqua and the Finder collumn view of Aqua, I'm fond of Nautilus 2 and the Panel of Gnome 2, I'm fond of KOffice, Kdevelopp of KDE 3
(I'm also fond of xemacs.. well :) )

so what ? One computer with OSX (I use it now to post on Dot.kde :) ) and I like it ,very convenient, very good interface, and I have a linux box with mostly Gnome2 and I'm fond of too (for different reason)

It's not a point to try to be rationnate here : different interface/project for differents peoples, it's a good thing

My opinion : why I prefere Aqua or gnome 2 instead of KDE3 ? because I prefere simple GUI , I mean, not too much option or icones everywhere

Aqua try to be very clean , gnome 2 now try to do the same

KDE 3 is more coherent than gnome 2 in its API and kde 3 got better and more functionnal dialog box like open/save , yes (kde 3 is very impressive) but it's not my taste in GUI. (kde 3 seems too "windows-like", I mean, too many many button,options settingss , and so on.. kcontrol is very very great to the ones who like to personnalize the Desktop , me I think it's too heavy , not pratical for beginner)

it's only my believings, I know people who love KDE , others only swear with Aqua , and some prefers to stay on windows.
differents peoples, differents tastes.

so what ? it's no use to be rationnate on asthetics or only visual GUI effects, liquid or not liquid, it's useless to be rationnate on this.

KDE has its very own feel , the KDE touch , and I think it's better than windows XP (mmm.. less cubersome, less tricky .. if you see what I mean )
great icons, many beautiful themes, can be very impressive and beautiful
, KDe people can be proud.

Gnome 2 is a different beast, It's good. Nautilus is nice and clean, Galeon, evolution, future gimp 1.3.x are impressive and nice. gnome is beauty too
(tigert and jimmac contributed many good and easy to read icons) , gnome 2 begin to be very good.

Aqua/Quartz , has many many great visual effects, excellent anti aliasing (patents prevents good anti aliasing on X11), mostly the cleaner GUI now , impressive color (some people hate them, other like them) and for me a very easy feel.

well I say that, but I know some other people who hate all of this and prefere FVWM2 and a emacs :) (and it's fine because it's useful for them)


By Michel Galle at Sat, 2002/06/08 - 5:00am

#1. Aqua
#2. KDE (default)
#3. Xfce4 (KDE theme)
#4. Gnome
#5. Winblows

:).


By Pacifist at Fri, 2003/12/19 - 6:00am

OK, you get a screenshot of MacOSX in one window (or tab) and get the screenshot of the crap-I mean "Liquid". Put it next to each other and see how they compare.


By Anonymous at Fri, 2006/02/10 - 6:00am

it's up to the user to decide what style to use. a lot of people actually DO like liquid. I'd imagine the fink packages default to highcolor (kde 3.0.x), or keramik (kde 3.1?)


By fault at Sat, 2002/06/01 - 5:00am

Oh, I absolutely believe that a lot of people like Liquid on KDE, just like a lot of people like Mac theme on Windows, WinXP style on Win95. There's even some software organization dedicated to mimick Mac OS on Windows (http://www.aqua-soft.org). That proves the influence that Apple has on the rest of the world.

Ever seen a Lycoris desktop? I'm astonished by their effort to imitate Windows XP, from the icons to the color theme and to the way things are arranged. Some Lycoris testers installed the OS to a school lab and PROUDLY deceived the students to think it's Windows XP.

Funny things happen in this community. On one hand, some people are zealously believing neither Windows nor Max OS X compares to the superiority of Linux. On the other hand, people are trying so hard to make their Linux look more like a Mac or a Windows.


By Felix at Sat, 2002/06/01 - 5:00am

> Funny things happen in this community. On one hand, some people are zealously
> believing neither Windows nor Max OS X compares to the superiority of Linux. On
> the other hand, people are trying so hard to make their Linux look more like a
> Mac or a Windows.

Wow, theres a shock, people have different opinions. Just because their all part of the Linux community doesn't mean their all going to think the same way.


By Bob at Sat, 2002/06/01 - 5:00am

Ah come off it, lots of people like Liquid, lots of people don't. I tried it, hated it, went back to the default style. So what? And there are software projects to do pretty much everything in the world, look at this thread, porting KDE to the Mac? Does that prove the influence KDE has on the rest of the world? No, I don't think it does.

Yep, Lycoris emulates XP as much as possible. This is one of their selling points. This is ONE Linux distro amongst many others. Lycoris is for people who really really like XP, but want to use Linux. Perhaps one day there will be a Linux distro that emulates a mac. Maybe.

Personally, my Linux looks like, well, Linux I guess. Although as a platform it doesn't really have one look. And finally, every single Mac user I've ever met in my life has believed the Mac is superior to everything else, but surprising though it may seem to you, not every Linux user is that way. In fact, most aren't as they are systems administrators who are paid to have professional opinions. I guess it's because all the users who weren't fantastically loyal left the Mac platform years ago, and because the only people who use Macs are those who have spare cash floating around and see their computers more as a fashion statement than a tool. I don't understand that attitude, but then I don't buy Nike trainers either, so what do I know?


By Mike at Sat, 2002/06/01 - 5:00am

Before I say the following words, let me make it clear that I have never owned a Mac and I'm a Linux user.

That fashion statement is exactly what puts the pride in every Mac user. When OS X came out, I was stunned -- hey, it's UNIX, it's easy and it's a beauty -- can you believe that? What the heck has the UNIX/Linux world been doing over the years?!

I don't mind being a follower or even a copier, but I seriouly resent showing off in front of the leader and the creator.


By Felix at Sun, 2002/06/02 - 5:00am

Hold on, I love Linux, but I also love my Mac.
It has been the most usefull tool I have ever purchased
for school. THe Mac runs statistical programs and data
organizing programs that I have found on no other platform.
Essentially I was pigeon holed into buying a Mac so that
I could function properly within my department at the University.
So, to say that they are only fashion statements is not universaly
true, however it is mostly true.

DaveO


By DaveO at Mon, 2003/04/28 - 5:00am

Fashion statement?

I was introducd to Mac in order to produce (work).

Its not a fashion, its an old system.


By John Plumridge at Sun, 2005/02/13 - 6:00am

No one would want to emulate OS X on Linux because they could just get OS X on it's own. XP sucks, why would anyone want to emulate it?


By Tom at Thu, 2006/10/19 - 5:00am

There is a COMPLETE difference between the LOOK of an OS and the UNDERWORKINGS of an OS. I use Linux because I like how it works. The fact that I think Mac OS X is the best LOOKING desktop says absolutely NOTHING about my loyalty to Linux - good or bad. The fact that I like my KDE desktop to look very similar to OS X says nothing about me as a Linux user - good or bad. The fact that some distributions fill this need by making it so that it ALREADY looks like another OS says nothing about the Linux community - good or bad.
My point is this: The great thing about the majority of the Linux community, I find, is that we are able to realize our own shortcomings as well as our own superiorities. Linux is stable. Windows is easy to use. OS X is pretty. That's just how it is right now. Looking at OS X, realizing it's an attractive desktop, and emulating that look in KDE is a perfectly fine action.


By brian at Sun, 2002/08/11 - 5:00am

I definately agree with Brian. I consider Mac OS X to be the best "looking" OS out there. Defenetely superior to windows. but in my experience never as good as linux. In fact linux is that much better than Mac that OS X is based on Unix (so technically linux aswell). I love linux till death, but the OS X look (Aqua) is definately better than the default KDE or GNOME. At least that's my opinion. I think it's awsome that you can make your Linux box look so much like OS X. Because that means that now instead of just having the power and reliability of a Linux box, you now have the beauty to go along with it. :)


By TemPLeST at Fri, 2002/10/25 - 5:00am

Yes, the beauty but not the functionality of OS X. Linux has along way to go on the desktop before it will be a viable alternative in the business world. There is still no software for linux to do what people use their computers for. If you're an engineer, where's the 3D CAD program for linux? (Don't even tell me about LinuxCAD - it's a joke). If you're in the advertising or publishing business, where are the multimedia development tools for linux? Even if you're just a home user, where's RealOne Player, Windows Media Player, or Quicken for linux? All these applications, and many more, are available for OS X. The open source software projects are coming along, but take GNUCash, for instance. It's maybe nice, but it can't export a QIF file, making it totally worthless for a personal finance manager. Or Kapital, the KDE personal finance manager, which is full of bugs, and also can't export a QIF. I run Debian linux servers, but when 10.2.2 Jaguar went mainstream I finally gave on the linux desktop. It has nothing to do with "fashion statements". It has to do with wanting a rock solid UNIX operating system with the most functional GUI yet developed in modern computing. And needing an operating system for which a variety of *high quality* software is available so you can use the machine for work in a production environment. It has to do with being able to plug in your digital camera, scanner, or printer, and it Just Works(tm) with no fiddling around with configuration files. It has to do with function, not fashion.
--
Chris Olson
Network Administrator
AST Communications, Inc. http://linux.astcomm.net
Barron, WI USA


By Chris Olson at Thu, 2002/12/12 - 6:00am

I am an engineering student as Utah State University and had the same thought that you did about the CAD software on linux. The program that we use in class, called Unigraphics, is very powerfull and also quite expensive. We run it on SGI O2 machines in class, but I did some research online and discovered that the company the makes the software plans to have a linux version for the next edition of the software. It is taking time, but the longer linux is used for real tasks, the more acceptance it will gain from the business folks. We all just need to be patient and work hard to contiue to make open source work.


By Kyle Horne at Mon, 2003/04/28 - 5:00am

www.qcad.org
have autocad from autodesk, to Linux, here in Brazil $$ 1500 $$


By Rodrigo Maia at Sun, 2005/04/24 - 5:00am

I have my own RHL 7.2 computer, and its really cool. About a month ago, a friend of mine whos a mac freak showed me Jaguar, and it kicked Gnome+KDE so hard. I like linux more, but i really would like getting a GUI that mimics 10.2, because it is with out a dought the best looking GUI around.


By THIBOLOT at Fri, 2002/12/06 - 6:00am

true, true :) I have a friend who has ibook with mac os x and i really LOVE this OS. I tried to make KDE similiar to it, but it's not the same. If someone have seen animated icons in the dock on os x, he knows what i am talking about :] (Does someone know how to make this effect on KDE?)


By oort at Thu, 2003/03/06 - 6:00am

Pages