KDE Core Services: Trouble In Paradise

As many people will have noticed, things haven't been too rosy in the KDE world
for the last few days. Virtually all of our critical services have been broken,
including cvs, mailing lists, kde.org mail addresses and a number of web sites
(such as developer.kde.org). Unsurprisingly, this has meant that KDE 3.0 Beta
2 (originally scheduled for Monday) has been delayed.

The problems we've been suffering are the result of a number of relatively
trivial problems all occurring simultaneously: a DoS attack meant that some
planned maintenance on cvs.kde.org needed to be performed immediately,
and this took longer than expected because it caused a schedule clash. At the
same time the machine room containing master was being cleared of Polychlorinated
Biphenyls, a toxic group of chemicals leaving no alternative but to take down
the machine (for more info on PCBs see http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/pcb/).

Happily, I can now tell you that thanks to a great deal of generosity and hardwork
by David Faure (Mandrake) and the admin team, Dirk Mueller, Adrian Schroeter
(SuSE), Stephan Kulow and Chris Schlaeger (SuSE), we have been able to set up
a replacement cvs server (kindly paid for by IBM) in the SuSE offices. Martin
Konold now has access to master, so mail and other services will be coming
back on line too. In addition, George Staikos can take credit for annoying
encouraging dfaure, and 'making stupid jokes'. ;-)

All of our data is intact, so the new release, while a few days late, will continue
as planned. Things will take a few days to sort themselves out, so please don't
all rush to update at once. Many thanks are due to everyone involved in sorting
this out.

Dot Categories: 


by KDE User (not verified)

Sorry, screenshots I've seen of gnome don't impress me. I find KDE's look (Highcolor default with mwm like window decorations) to be the best possible interface around.

by Luther (not verified)

Would you care to give an example of what, in terms of productivity, KDE offers that you can't get on Gnome? The biggest slap against Gnome was that it was ugly, not nearly as pretty as KDE. KDE has had the reputation of looking really nice, but being a bear when it comes to resources. Now Gnome comes out with one theme that is system intensive and you start bashing it productivity. So please enlighten us with all of Gnome's productivity shortcomings.

by Julien Olivier (not verified)

With Gnome, I can't create a PHP script on my desktop, then, using DND, put it on ftp://login:[email protected] and vice versa.
I can't pop down ALL my windows in one time to, then, open just the one I need thanks to the dekstop icon.
I even can't drag a desktop from Nautilus and drop it on the desktop to make a link to it. DnD MOVEs the folder ! (I tried that on Mdk8.1 out of the box)
Most of the MIME-Types aren't well defined and it's very difficult to make associations (I mean more than 2 clicks for an association is way too much).

Those 3 things definitely make GNOME unuseable for me at daily work (I'm a webmaster). Don't tell I'm a troll because I really like GNOME. I find it pretty, I find it fast but I just really can't use it.

I think the problem with KDE (for me) is that the default look is nice but not really original: it looks like windows 2000 with a Microsoft Plus theme if you see what I mean. Of course, I exagerate but when I use GNOME (mainly at home, where I only listen to MP3s, surf using Mozilla and watch DVDs) or WindowMaker, I feel like I'm using something original.

KDE just doesn't need to look like MacOS X or WinXP, it just needs to be visually original but keep a classic feel (CTRL-C / CTRL-V, konqueror ala MSIE etc...).

I repeat, I don't think that KDE isn't pretty. The default theme is an enhanced version of Windows 2000 look and, with High Performance Liquid, you'll get Mac OS X. BUT there is no nice and original theme for KDE to replace the default one.

Sorry if I've said bullshit about GNOME but I just say what I noticed using GNOME on Mandrake 8.1 .I can't say if it's Mandrake's fault or GNOME's one.

by JM (not verified)

I personally keep switching back and forth. What I find amusing is the fact I typically end up using KDE more but 90% of the programs I use are built around GNOME because I cannot find ones for KDE that work for me as well.

examples: PAN, GQview, gftp, xchat, glitter, plus a few more.

by joschi (not verified)

"With Gnome, I can't create a PHP script on my desktop, then, using DND, put it on ftp://login:[email protected] and vice versa."

Absolutely untrue, i just did it.

"I can't pop down ALL my windows in one time to, then, open just the one I need thanks to the dekstop icon."

I'm not aware of an icon to do this, but it is simple to bind a key in sawfish to minimize all windows.

" I even can't drag a desktop from Nautilus and drop it on the desktop to make a link to it. DnD MOVEs the folder ! (I tried that on Mdk8.1 out of the box)"

Shift-drag makes a link, ctrl-drag makes a copy, alt-drag asks you which you want with a menu.

by dave (not verified)

...and if pressing even one key's too much for you dragging with the middle button also gives you the choice to link/move/copy.

by Ian Reinhart Geiser (not verified)

what middle button?

what i love about KDE is i can use it with my single button mouse.
-ian reinhart geiser

by Chris Conrad (not verified)

Does it make you feel good to bash the Gnome project at every opportunity? And, two parent posts above yours explains quite nicely how to move/copy/link using Gnome with one button.

by Ian Reinhart Geiser (not verified)

yes, the GNOME project is why I develop for KDE ;)

besides gnome never ran correctly on my mac anyway, one more reason to move to kde. i dont have to remove random corefiles from the root directory nightly.


-ian reinhart geiser

by Chris Conrad (not verified)

[rantmode on]
I'm glad that is why you develop for KDE. And I'm sure happy to know that the reason you decided to work on it was because Gnome didn't work on your mac. Want to know why I don't work on KDE? Because of attitudes like the one you displayed on this message board.

How come one of the KParts tutorials goes out of it's way to criticize bonobo? If I want to read about bonobo I'll go and do so. I am perfectly capable of making up my own mind about which technology is better.

Why can't someone point out a feature in Gnome that they like without being attacked about it? Are you that insecure that maybe the Gnome project can produce better code then the KDE project that you need to mindlessly bash them? Hey, I know, why not go and send TrustCommerce nasty email now because they think that Gnome apps are more full featured then their KDE equivalents.
[rantmode off]

I come to the dot because I use KDE at work and am interested in seeing what is going on with the project. But if this is the kinda crap I need to put up with whenever Gnome is brought up here, I don't think I'll bother with KDE anymore.

Oh, and I use Gnome on my iBook because KDE just crashes under Mac OS X.

by John Q Public (not verified)

I know you probably don't care, but one of the main reasons I chose KDE of GNOME was its developers. I went into the GNOME irc channel, and asked some question which I dont remember anymore (97/98 dont remember which year) and no one answered me. So I asked again in like 5min, and then the only person to answer me basically said RTFM. I thought I'd try KDE cause I heard about it in /. I think, so I tried it and something didnt work. I went into the kde channel and someone there answered my question.
I get the same crap in #mozilla. They are all a bunch of jerks. I asked a NS6 question, but I had the same problem with Mozilla.
Everytime I've went into #kde or #kde-users with a question I got an answer. Except if neil or krazykiwi are there. One thing I can say for Neil, he at least seems to know anything about KDE like the back of his hand. Krazikiwi never seems to know what I ask (which is fine), but then she (?) also has a really condencending attitute. If I see her there as the only active person, I just leave.

by About Gnome (not verified)

This is a flame and I make no apologies for it.

Gnome started for one reason and one reason only: RMS didn't agree with the KDE developers' interpretation of the GPL wrt the QT library. Gnome was set up with the intention of creating FUD to delay the uptake of the best thing to ever happen to desktop Linux and to bluff and bully the KDE crowd into getting the QT licencing changed.

Yes, you heard it right, Gnome was *deliberately* started to be "bickering, competing and incompatible" and to stop Linux having a single desktop standard if that standard was to be KDE.

The licence issue is *long* in the past. That out of the way, the Gnome crowd should have had to decency to either scrap Gnome completely (as did those working on the Harmony project, which was developing a GPL QT clone) so we could unite behind KDE or keep Gnome going as a low key longer-term hacker R&D project like Enlightenment. But no, we had to keep the ball rolling didn't we.

Why, given the adverse impact this has had on Linux and other target platforms?

NIH syndrome partly; a lot of big egos (many in the US) were beaten to the punch by a bunch of (mainly) German students.

And the fact that it relies on an existing library means that big egos who want to reinvent the universe can't develop their own object library; they have to do something useful.

But the main reason, irony of ironies, is that it is LGPL rather than KDE's GPL; yes folks, the desktop that began as *THE* GNU free desktop now boasts that it is more commercial-friendly. That's why Sun and HP are putting money into it. Guarantees success? Ah, look at CDE...

Gnome is an expensive, deliberately divisive vapourware project that should have been scrapped after the QT licence changes if the principals involved had any sense of decency or any *REAL* committment to free software. It continues because a bunch of pricks can't admit that they were wrong and continue to put their own giant egos ahead of the development of desktop Unix.

Meanwhile KDE continues to release in its usual methodical fashion while Gnome 2 stays as FUD. ("You may think KDE's kewl, but wait till you see Gnome 2!") Pardon me while I puke...

Gnome and the bastards who've hyped this piece of vapourware and tried to sabotage KDE for the last five years can go to Hell! Who needs Microsoft trying to pull the rug from under the free Unix's when you've got this lot! (Yes, that includes RMS, who is responsible for initiating and encouraging this debacle).

To paraphrase the end of RMS's infamous letter of "forgiveness" to the KDE developers: Go KDE!!!

by dave (not verified)

The reason it's stayed around is because people use it, like it and develop for it. You find kde better, great, use kde, others find gnome better - for them it i s better to use gnome. It might have started because of licencing issues but now it was never meant to be a clone of kde - just a good desktop.

by About Ximian (not verified)

Let us be realistic. It is obvious that Gnome is the desktop war, in Linux. I predict Gnome will live as a replacement for CDE, since Sun wants to force it on its users. Linux and the BSDs will be dominated by KDE. The Gnome team may as well not bother to support anything other than Solaris.

Gnome has some great applications, but as a desktop environment it is poor, and it cannot keep up with the onslaught of KDE releases.

by me (not verified)

It sounds to me that you don't believe anyone actually uses gnome (unless they have a gun pointed at their head). It would be really great to have some real numbers on the proportion of people using each desktop - i know it's quite hard to get statistics like this mainly because (almost) all distributions include both desktops. However most of the people that i have spoken to who have tried ximian gnome after using kde for long periods of time seem very impressed and are enthusiastic about it "better looking and faster than kde". So i just wanted to assure you that some people do actually use and like gnome (and no there isn't a sun/ximian employee behind me forcing me to write this)
I'm not quite sure why you seem to want gnome dead, surely it does you (or kde) no harm.

by Ian Reinhart Geiser (not verified)

Have you ever coded bonobo?
It was coded by a bunch of poorly trainted chimps...

The fact of the matter is GNOME is not designed, it is a bunch of ripped off applications pasted together. Their flagship apps are just ripoffs of other projects they where able to hijack. OpenOffice, Mozzila, ESD, the list goes on...

GNOME is just something that happend, KDE on the otherhand has some design.

You strike me as a user, so I will spare you any more details, but after 6 years of software design, you gotta know when something smells like an MFC / Motif ripoff...

-ian reinhart geiser

by KDE Developer (not verified)

> It was coded by a bunch of poorly trainted chimps...

Please note that Geiseri speaks on his' own behalf and the majority of KDE developers not necessarily share his view and verbalism.

by flo. (not verified)

...because the gnome/FSF/debian/RMS-lovin trolls did it for years.

by someone (not verified)

> I even can't drag a desktop from Nautilus and drop it on the desktop to make a link to it. DnD MOVEs the folder !

Shift Drag.

by Ian Reinhart Geiser (not verified)

2 words
"File" "Dialog"

A) its ugly and B) its useless.

i have no ability to save to the network in gimp... i may in nautlus but gedit just looks at me silly. there is no consistancy, there is no usabilty, it is just a random act of some C coder playing arround.

I like the ability to change views, bookmark, get previews, filter (by mime type not this silly extentions crap).

KDE is just more profesional that is all, GNOME is nice for someone who wants to be 1337 but I unfortunately need a consistantly working print system to get by in life.

-ian reinhart geiser

by andrew (not verified)

*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.

by Ian Reinhart Geiser (not verified)

/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

by Chris Conrad (not verified)

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)

by reihal (not verified)

Sour grapes, eh?

by Ian Reinhart Geiser (not verified)

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 :)

-ian reinhart geiser

by Troll Nick (not verified)

>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.

by KDE User (not verified)

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.

by Chris Conrad (not verified)

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.

by KDE User (not verified)

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:

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.

by Bob (not verified)

Conclusions about bonobo:
Use bonobo for what its meant to be used
Don't use bonobo for stupid things.


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.

by ac (not verified)

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.

by bob (not verified)

> 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.

by Ian Reinhart Geiser (not verified)

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

by Bob (not verified)

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.

by me (not verified)

WOW!!! he's an asshole cause he's right!!!
glad you don't use kde. we can do without morons like you.

by Chris Conrad (not verified)

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.

by Chexsum (not verified)

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. ;)

by Ian Reinhart Geiser (not verified)

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

by KDE User (not verified)

That was an informative reply to a low-brow flame. Thanks.

by Chris Conrad (not verified)

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.

by Chris Conrad (not verified)

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?

by Ian Reinhart Geiser (not verified)

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.

by Chris Conrad (not verified)

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.

by Mike Roch (not verified)

I don't know why your so ugly maybe it just runs in the family.succer

by bob (not verified)

> 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.

by ac (not verified)

The first search result for DCOP was this:


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)

by ik (not verified)

this is absurd. dcop is very much QT specific, so it would be almost impossible to switch to dcop for gnome.

by KDE User (not verified)

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.

by Ian Reinhart Geiser (not verified)

silly monky lover, dcopc is written in gtk, even the Windowmaker guys are looking seriously at it.

-ian reinhart geiser
p.s. yes, this was a troll, you are finally getting entertaining.

by ac (not verified)

Can't you give it a rest? This is not slashdot, although it seems like it now :-(