The Fine Print: The following comments
are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
Compiler for Sun Solaris?
by Loranga on Saturday 30/Jun/2001, @11:45
|
Are KDE for Solaris compiled with GCC or the Solaris compilers?
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Compiler for Sun Solaris?
by Peter Benschop on Monday 02/Jul/2001, @16:30
|
I have compiled everything up to the latest alpha
using gcc and encountered only minor problems
(The most anoying one the need for -fpermissive).
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Compiler for Sun Solaris?
by eva on Tuesday 03/Jul/2001, @07:45
|
The KDE 2.1.2 packages are compiled with gcc-2.95.2 and thus 32bit.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
|
Re: KDE 2.x Systems
by KDE User on Saturday 30/Jun/2001, @16:32
|
That's a whole lotta Debian. Go R. Krusty!
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: KDE 2.x Systems
by Hans Spaans on Sunday 01/Jul/2001, @17:35
|
They didn't include testing (Woody) into it. And thats the one that going to be interesting, specially with the freeze coming up. Hopefully KDE2.2 isn't delayed so it can enter Woody on time. KDE 2.2b1 or even a later CVS-version if I'm not mistaken has already entered Sid.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
|
Should run on more NetBSD architectures
by joe_netbsd_lover on Saturday 30/Jun/2001, @22:09
|
Post this message to the NetBSD advocacy list. Od it now and you'll get probably 6 or 7 more entries.
:-P
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
|
|
Re: KDE 2.x Systems
by Guru on Sunday 01/Jul/2001, @12:08
|
How can I install this on my Amiga 500? I have the 512k expansion card so memory shouldn't be a problem.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: KDE 2.x Systems
by Per Wigren on Sunday 01/Jul/2001, @13:03
|
You need the expansion memory to be chipmem, not fastmem. It is needed to support the transparency effects.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: KDE 2.x Systems
by Dan on Monday 02/Jul/2001, @11:00
|
You will also really need an external disc drive. KDE 1.x works fine from a single 880k floppy, but I found 2.x requires a lot of disc swapping with just one drive. With Workbench 1.2 in the internal drive and KDE in the external it just flies!
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: KDE 2.x Systems
by me on Monday 02/Jul/2001, @20:06
|
Wow! I thought this KDE-on-Amiga was a joke until so many serious replies popped up to the first question!
Could you please tell me how it is possible to run KDE in less than 1MB of memory (RAM)? And how can it be that it "flies" on such an old computer when KDE sometimes crawls on a rather new Pentium-calss system?
Is this a special KDE-for-Amiga version or did I underestimate the old Amiga so badly?
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
|
Slackware 8.0
by Rob Kaper on Sunday 01/Jul/2001, @14:39
|
Slackware 8.0 is out, this should replace the 7.2 (current) entry in the list.
It comes with KDE 2.1.2 (ftp://ftp.slackware.com/pub/slackware/slackware-8.0/slakware/kde1)
and it will compile current CVS (thus 2.2 beta1) just fine. Haven't installed it yet, but I can depend on Slackware and am willing to take bets it does.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
PowerPC'ers, unite!
by Otter on Sunday 01/Jul/2001, @15:38
|
KDE has always run beautifully on PowerPC. I submitted a report for LinuxPPC on the 604e and G3 but I know there's a lot of other people running Debian and SuSe for PowerPC out there. Let's hear from all you guys, as well as anyone running on a G4!
By the way, this is a great move on Andreas' part. KDE's portability is extremely underrated because of its lack of official links with commercial Unixes, but it actually runs far better out of the box on Solaris and HP-UX than does the new official desktop for those platforms. (I'll forgo commenting on why I'm not shocked that paying the project leader's company to manage cross-platform compatability results in less portability in the main source tree, not more. ;-) ) Making it prominent and clear what platforms can run KDE and how to do it is going to be a great PR boost.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: KDE 2.x Systems
by Rik Hemsley on Sunday 01/Jul/2001, @19:10
|
KDE 1.1.2 also runs on Windows, albeit in an alpha-quality form. Work on porting KDE 2.0 run seems to be making good progress.
See http://cygwin.kde.org
I'm quite keen to see this happen. It would be no use to me personally, but it's a challenge and I'm sure people can think of reasons why (or why not) this should be done.
Currently I'm wondering whether KDE should be ported to Qt-NonCommercial ('natively') or whether using the cygwin layer is the best idea.
Using cygwin would make the port easier and also allow us to avoid having to maintain so much cross-platform code, however using Qt-NC would mean no compatibility layer (perhaps slightly faster - though I can't imagine cygwin adds much) and also no X server needed.
Perhaps it might be possible to have XFree-Cygwin 'detach' windows ? That would allow KDE apps to run 'inside' the Windows desktop - just like apps using Wine can on Linux.
Rik
p.s. Major kudos to the talented hacker ('habacker') who has obviously been working very hard on this project.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: KDE 2.x Systems
by not me on Monday 02/Jul/2001, @00:22
|
>Currently I'm wondering whether KDE should be ported to Qt-NonCommercial ('natively') or whether using the cygwin layer is the best idea.
Why not both? QT/Non-Commercial is obviously the better choice for display as it can co-exist w/ normal Windows apps on the same desktop, and it's probably faster too. However, the Cygwin libraries would provide a Linux-like environment for the things that KDE does that are unrelated to QT (Cygwin is _much_ more than an XFree port) and therefore reduce the porting needed. Best of both worlds!
If someone ported KWin too, KDE could form a complete shell-replacement, like Litestep. And if KDE started catching the attention of the Litestep-using crowd, it could only be a good thing. For one, it would mean a HUGE increase in the number of available, good themes ;-)
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: KDE 2.x Systems
by Philippe Fremy on Monday 02/Jul/2001, @06:54
|
Gygwin gcc has one restriction: all program produced with it must be GPLed. So you can't distribute a binary version of konqueror that was compiled this way, with Qt-NC, because you can not change the license of konqi to add exception for Qt. We are back to license nightmares.
However, mingw32 doesn't have this restriction. But you must first convince trolltech to release a QT-NC for mingw32 and cygwin. Currently, they only provide binary for msvc.
I would love to use Konqi and KOffice at work, under windows.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: KDE 2.x Systems
by Harold Hunt on Monday 02/Jul/2001, @22:00
|
>Gygwin gcc has one restriction: all program produced with it must be GPLed. So you can't
>distribute a binary version of konqueror that was compiled this way, with Qt-NC, because you
>can not change the license of konqi to add exception for Qt. We are back to license nightmares.
Not true. Cygwin is not licensed under the GPL per se, it is licensed under a modified GPL which specifically allows linking of libcygwin1.a to Open Source programs without requiring that those programs be licensed under the GPL.
http://cygwin.com/licensing.html
Please don't spread such misinformation. I love KDE, and I develop for Cygwin/XFree86, and I'd really hate to see KDE on Cygwin held up because people hadn't read the Cygwin license carefully :)
Harold
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
|
off topic but still cool pls forgive
by craig on Sunday 01/Jul/2001, @21:08
|
I came across this today. Looks like another Linux desktop site has popped up. Another place for us to hang out between dot stories. Its at http://GUI-Lords.org
Craig
please forgive my off topic post. I know it would'nt warrent a full story.
|
[
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)
Posted by Dre on Friday 29/Jun/2001, @21:42