In this week's CVS-Digest:
A deeper freeze is called for in preparation for release. Kexi,
a graphical database application now has GUI and non-GUI parts.
Many bug fixes, including searching and sorting fixes in JuK,
topmenu fixes in KWin, CSS and JavaScript fixes in Konqueror.
Dot Categories:
Comments
OK, I don't know who is Wiggle, may be you have a reason to ban him.
I know what I am talking about, it's that GPL is free, it forbids. BSD is more free than GPL, LGPL is more free too. Anyway, this seems to turn to a big philosophy, just think about it. Keep the good culture, no need to troll.
I know you all would be more happy if Qt was LGPL and even more if it was BSD. However this people have to make money and that's why they use "Dual Licensing". Nothing wrong with it, it's a nice business strategy, and a monopolistic of course because anyone who wants to make a commercial app for KDE must pay exactly to Qt and more than that extremely high amount (no other toolkit costs as much as Qt). This closes KDE to be open only for non-commercial programs, at least I don't know a title that is commercial under KDE.
Let's not repeat again that everyone is able to write commercial app for other platforms without being forced to pay to a dominant solution provider - in our case Qt is dominant, even on Windows you can choose from several different vendors and you also have a lot of free libs. Just take a closer look Java, Windows, Mac, Gnome - there is at least one open library that you can use to write a commercial app and of course (at least for windows) you have various library vendors. This is not the case with KDE, only one solution provider and a lot of money - options are two - only GPL apps or pay Qt.
Until now I never found app for KDE that is CLOSED SOURCE, yes there are a several Qt apps (all thekompany apps are Qt apps not KDE). This situation making kde to stay away of the corporate desktop. And yes I can agree that KDE would have a future with systems like Kontakt/Kroupware (btw i never used Evolution but from people who have used it I hear very good things), KIOSK, etc on the corporate desktop but what about the thousands more commercial apps? If major software vendors start porting their apps to GTK (instead of KDE/QT) then user will prefer Gnome because of better integration.
Currently the industry Linux corporate desktop seems to be OpenOffice+Mozilla+Evolution+GIMP+KDE/Gnome, at least this is the common average opinion. Things are changing, KDE can be easy replaced with Gnome in this configuration, although Konqueror is better than Mozilla/Netscape. But let's not make this as KDE vs Gnome, it's actually GPL vs LGPL. Sun decided that it's "Java Desktop" will be StarOffice+Mozilla+Evolution+Gnome, and they have a reason, Sun cannot base it's future strategy on Qt because of GPL. Similar did RedHat, similar will may be do Novell/SuSE, but still for the desktop user KDE looks best.
I envision that in close future KDE will be separated into two big projects:
1) konqueror project for the best browser, which will compete with mozilla
2) KDE window manager - the best window manager for the end user, of course will be bundled with some apps as it is today but at least noone will write apps especially for KDE but instead just use the high configurability of this WindowManager for achieving the best look for his users desktops
This are the global trends I envision right now, and the main reason for this is the lack of commercial apps and commercial support for KDE. And for me only the BSD or LGPL KDE+QT can solve this.
> all thekompany apps are Qt apps not KDE
This is not true (Kapital, KDE Studio Gold). They changed their strategy for new applications but still offer (and develop?) these.
BSD is more free than GPL, LGPL is more free too.
So perhaps we should only release Public domain, which doesn't have such cruel restrictions like having to include the other authors name :)
anyone who wants to make a commercial app for KDE must pay exactly to Qt
Just wanted to remind you that "commercial" means you're making money with it and that you really meant "closed source".
You will have to pay for a Qt licence even if you release freeware, if you are not willing to release sourcem but you don't have to even if you request some payment for your software as long as the customer can get the source on request as well.
If major software vendors start porting their apps to GTK (instead of KDE/QT)
I suggest you contact Adobe as soon as possible to tell them what a horrible mistake they made in choosing Qt for Photoshop Album because GTK+ is cheaper while being technically equivalent.
Those poor people obviously have no idea how to evaluate possible options, but fortunately you're here to do it for them.
Cheers,
Kevin
1. Commercial != Proprietary/closed-source. This means that commercial but non-proprietary apps can use QT as much as they want. That's the beauty of the GPL for libraries--encouragement to write open-source software.
2. Nobody who USES proprietary software has to pay for QT unless they write it themself.
3. If Linux itself is open-source, and companies want to use it, what's wrong with using open-source apps with it? I mean, you're saying companies use Gnome only because they need proprietary software. That's pure nonsense because GTK apps work fine under KDE anyway. And isn't the point of Linux supposed to be open-source code?
>>> Do you know why RMS did LGPL - for libraries. GPL for apps, LGPL for libs.
RMS did not make the LGPL for *all* libraries. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html
>>> If something is stated to be a Open Source it must be really open like BSD, everything else is so called GPL tirany or as some guys call it "Dual Licensing". If one is willing to contribute back he must not be forced to do such (because of restrictions of (L)GPL) but because of the good will to help out.
Before the GPL, software was becoming proprietary because nothing was there to protect it. GPL has measures to protect software from this. That's what it is for.
>>> Making something "Dual Licensed" is like giving to the community a proprietary software for Free trial. For small or big business decision to rely on not-open standard and proprietary library is a bad choice. That's why companies like Sun and Novel choose LGPL to rely on instead of GPL/QT.
This makes no sense. The only way you'd be required to pay TrollTech for QT is if you don't release the source to your program. The reason that Sun and Novell stay away from QT is that they often write proprietary/closed-source programs. You do NOT need to pay for QT if you just RUN programs that are proprietary.
>>> Keep the good culture, no need to troll.
Isn't that what *you're* doing? :-D
>>> Let's not repeat again that everyone is able to write commercial app for other platforms without being forced to pay to a dominant solution provider - in our case Qt is dominant, even on Windows you can choose from several different vendors and you also have a lot of free libs. Just take a closer look Java, Windows, Mac, Gnome - there is at least one open library that you can use to write a commercial app and of course (at least for windows) you have various library vendors. This is not the case with KDE, only one solution provider and a lot of money - options are two - only GPL apps or pay Qt.
This is not a fair comparison. You're comparing a desktop environment (KDE) to entire operating systems. FYI, you can still use non-QT apps under KDE. There's nothing stopping you from writing a non-free GTK app and running it under KDE.
>>> KIOSK, etc on the corporate desktop but what about the thousands more commercial apps? If major software vendors start porting their apps to GTK (instead of KDE/QT) then user will prefer Gnome because of better integration.
I don't know of anyone who uses Linux or FreeBSD with only proprietary software. But I'm sure it's possible. The point of Linux and BSD are not to run mostly proprietary software but instead to run open-source software. Also, if you get a GTK theme called "GTK-QT", GTK programs will look and feel like KDE programs because they will use your KDE style. Next you'll be complaining about Wine not using QT...
>>> Currently the industry Linux corporate desktop seems to be OpenOffice+Mozilla+Evolution+GIMP+KDE/Gnome, at least this is the common average opinion. Things are changing, KDE can be easy replaced with Gnome in this configuration, although Konqueror is better than Mozilla/Netscape. But let's not make this as KDE vs Gnome, it's actually GPL vs LGPL.
OpenOffice, Mozilla, Evolution, GIMP, KDE, and GNOME are all open-source. What's your point? In addition, Linux/Unix is about choice. It's a good thing if the user can choose rather than being forced to use KDE or GNOME. Now, I'm not saying I'm a GNOME fan--I love KDE, and that's the reason I use it. I wouldn't use GNOME just because it looks better with any particular program(s).
>>> Sun decided that it's "Java Desktop" will be StarOffice+Mozilla+Evolution+Gnome, and they have a reason, Sun cannot base it's future strategy on Qt because of GPL. Similar did RedHat, similar will may be do Novell/SuSE, but still for the desktop user KDE looks best.
1. Sun has a right to decide what to include and what not to include. That is their business and not yours. I'm sure it wasn't just QT that did it.
2. Red Hat has included KDE with its distro since QT went GPL. They just chose GNOME as the default, but you don't have to use it if you don't want to.
3. Hel-lo! In SuSE, YaST is written for QT, and the default desktop is KDE. Another commercial distro that uses KDE as the default is Mandriva.
>>> I envision that in close future KDE will be separated into two big projects:
1) konqueror project for the best browser, which will compete with mozilla
2) KDE window manager - the best window manager for the end user, of course will be bundled with some apps as it is today but at least noone will write apps especially for KDE but instead just use the high configurability of this WindowManager for achieving the best look for his users desktops
You just don't get it, do you? KDE is open-source. It will always be that way. KDE itself is under the GPL. Almost every program for it is under the GPL or BSD license, and there are a growing number of programs for it. Your vision of the future will only be true if everybody suddenly stopped writing code under any type of open-source license, including the BSD license. In short: as long as people are willing to write open-source programs (GPL, BSD, LGPL, X11, etc.), KDE can exist.
Sorry this was so long, but this was fun. :)
There is a difference between posting a different opinion and repeatedly posting wrong facts to, as this user admitted for similiar stuff e.g. on gnomedesktop.org, "just to see what shit I could stir up by submitting it". You can find his prepared pamphlet on /. (posted off-topic as always) if you miss it.
> Do you know why RMS did LGPL - for libraries. GPL for apps, LGPL for libs.
Read for yourself, also why it's called the Lesser GPL now and not encouraged for every library: http://www.fsf.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html
Fantastic read. Recommended for everyone who never read it ... and it fits perfectly in what I said above about my concerns with the BSD type of licensing ...
> Seems that you are all blind (or pretend to be), and banning out the people who post a different opinion.
Erm, different opinions are fine, but Wiggle has been a known troll on this site for a very long time. He is perhaps the only regular troll here. He uses open proxy servers to get around bans.
dot.kde.org uses squishdot, which doesn't allow for very advanced moderation facilities, and as such, renaming text in posts is the only thing that can be done pretty much.
I have an idea - why don't you use the product that best works for you? If KDE and Qt don't have licenses you like, don't use them. For other people, like myself, the Qt licensening scheme works out great.
Don't assume that your situation is the ONLY situation. I think you're the one with the blinders on.
With this subject and steadily repeated posting of your radical opinion you should not wonder to be considered as troll soon.
"Thank you. I hope this has been informative."
It was. It informed me not to read your comments again, ever.
Novell, who has no history of contributing to either Linux or any desktop environments, all of a sudden owns the desktop? Your faith is touching.
Openoffice is about 3 releases away from being a bloated huge mess to something reasonable. Same with Mozilla. Or mega-bloat may be the best word. These are two of the foundations of the linux/gnome/evolution/mozilla/openoffice desktop offerings. They work, but are not interoperable, are huge, work off of three gui libraries. At best it is a stopgap let's-get-something-out-there measure of approaching the desktop. Keep the marketing people happy.
Novell can't afford to hire enough developers to finish the desktop. They depend on other companies, individuals to produce code. Similar to IBM's contributions to the kernel. Generous and helpful, but they don't own the kernel, not by a long shot. If Novell comes in, waving ownership papers to Ximian and Suse, and tries to tell the developer community what they should work on, they are dead. Plain and simple, they will cease to exist. None of this is their projects. Where would that leave Gnome? Suse knows how to do it right, and if Novell is smart, will listen to them. Remember, Suse has a growing desktop market based on KDE. Sales. Demand. Real money, not some dream.
Remember, Novell is on probation. Developers, whether hired or working on their own will contribute if they have confidence. If Novell screws up, they are on their own. Attempting to kill KDE would be a screw up. It is not theirs to kill.
Have you ever thought that Novell could kill Gnome if they aren't smart? What reason do we have to trust Novell? What has their contribution to free software been? Have they open sourced any of their core technologies, like IBM and SGI have? Remember, Darl and the boys used to work at Novell. That was their corporate thinking. Have they changed?
Derek (who trusts no-one, especially when money is involved)
http://www.desktoplinux.com/files/article003/sld018.html
Replace 'Novell' with 'Ximian desktop' and you got what this slide is showing (note that there's Microsoft Exchange in the left top corner, and the Linux OS layer is described as 'partner' even though in both cases Novell has its own in-house solutions now).
Why the heck does it seem that all the enterprise-targeting distros (RH, Sun,
Novell) go for Gnome?
Gnome is nice, but Kde is nicer. period.
Because RH, Sun started off as GNOME shops, and eventually decided to target the enterprise? RH really didn't try to target the enterprise back in 1996, and Sun adopted GNOME just as a replacement for CDE in Solaris.
Novell isn't really GNOME company; they were just able to buy Ximian before SuSE, and as such, GNOME/Ximian integration into the company started months before integration of SuSE.
Had Novell aquirred SuSE for 140$ Million, as they originally wanted, the situation would be reversed, because apparently Novell tried to aquire SuSE before the Ximian buyout, and failed.
I will say, and its just me parroting the Redhat line here. They probably want to provide other developers with a platform to actually make their own apps, whether open source or proprietary.
They prefer not to have hidden costs associated with using their distros as development platforms. A company doesn't have to roll out a Linux desktop, then realise if they want to make closed source apps, they have to pay more money to Qt, with a extra set of licensing terms. Its good logic, and the day there is no good reason to use Qt ahead of GTK, Qt will be in trouble. The thing is if Trolltech made Qt LGPL, then anyone could make and sell development tools. Companies like Redhat would just inclde them in their distros. (RHEL now comes with Eclipse, which if combined with like Qt, could make KDevelop and others look seriously wanting. Plus its compiled and runs pretty speedy. The fastest Eclipse around now) But I digress. Don't get me wrong, the situation was mostly rectified when Qt introduced the free Qt/X Windows license, but there aer some niggles which companies like Redhat like to avoid.
To sum up: if KDE is nicer (and as of my opinion, on almost all aspects it is) but GNOME gets chosen on all fronts, there has to be a reason. I'd hate to take take the Qt-licensing stuff here again, but i'm afraid that may not be too far fetched after all. Another good point may be the fact that corporations need to *buy* their free desktop (go figure) from someone. Maybe a business-case for the Trolls?
Hope this isn't a goodbye for the KDE support for the enterprises. Personally, i may be really close on getting it into wider use in our company (to development workstations in a company with more than 40 000 desktops), but now if things are starting to break up again this may get tricky (original plan was to use IBM/SuSE/KDE, but now if it turns out so that IBM/Novell/SuSE goes with XD, god only knows what happens).
The question is who choses it, the users or commercial distributions/enterprise heads? GNOME may end as business desktop and KDE as desktop of users' hearts. Like rumored today's situation inside Sun Europe.
Where is it written that Novell goes for Gnome? It's only their subsidiary Ximian which does so, and that shouldn't be surprising at all.
Because right now, the applications that are ready are Mozilla, Evolution and OpenOffice.
The list makes obvious the difficulties. Three gui libraries. Two monolithic apps on a foreign graphic framework. How can lgpl libraries make much difference here? Can you call Openoffice Write as a gui part in your application?
I can't see it really being anything but a stopgap measure till something else comes along.
Derek
If khtml rendering faults are rated normal or below (and all the ones I have reported are) and they are going to wait for 3.2.1, then there's going to be a lot of disappointed users for 3.2.0 :(
It depends what causes the rendering faults. Some are due to unsupported extensions. Others are plain broken.
The fixes require new features, ie. building support for IE document models. It's too late in the release schedule to do any more destabilizing in the codebase. Right now the goal is to get what is already there stable for release.
Derek
better than that. why bother reporting the minor little annoying bugs, 'caus they'll just get closed with a terse "fixed already in HEAD".
why do you sound so dissapointed? your bug was fixed! w00t