On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 06:14 -0700, kai wrote:
No, not exactly. I was more because of this...
Oh dear, this is even older. The Qt licencing has changed, and very little of what he wrote still aplies today. I don't see how this is relevant.
I'm annoyed at him - as the link to the comp.os.linux.announce post shows - for starting the GNOME project and splitting the GUI-based Linux crowd into two main camps. Yes, there are the Enlightenment and Blackbox/Fluxbox crowds who will use those desktops. However, the majority of us day-to-day users want to have a desktop environment such as KDE from which we can perform our tasks and run our apps. I felt back then and still feel today that creating GNOME has done more harm to the adoption of Linux on the desktop than good. Miguel states in the post that he started GNOME because the KDE folks were using the Qt toolkit from Trolltech, which was perceived to be non GPL. (I honestly cannot remember if it actually wasnt GPL at the time.) Instead of working to fix the issue, he went ahead and focused scarce resources on another competing product. This has created a schism of sorts in the Linux world and has been pointed to me several times by people wanting to upgrade from Windows as a reason why they wont or why they shouldnt, having been told by others that Linux had to desktops, which is bad and unstable. In addition, just look at the archive of this and other linux lists to see the flame wars which ensue when discussion GNOME vs. KDE. More than once, the need to switch from GTK libraries to Qt libraries even under KDE has caused frustration and confusion for me and people I know working with Linux. I wont even get into the lack of consistency between GTK-based dialog boxes and Qt-based dialog boxes. I feel Linux would have been far better served if one primary desktop had been pushed and adopted. GNOME is Im sure a fine desktop. I wont use it because I feel it is blurry and puts a strain on my eyes when I look at it. KDE is also a fine desktop, which IMO is sharper and easier to read. I also believe the Qt licensing is a valid business model which deserves support and not ridicule. You can find it listed here: http://www.trolltech.com/company/model.html and here http://www.trolltech.com/download/opensource.html along with a link to the GPL. Of course, I cannot even find the GNOME license on their website (www.gnome.org) to determine what it is. (Ive heard it is a BSD-style, but am not sure.) Now, as you have pointed out, this all happened some time ago. In fact, were quickly approaching ten years since Miguel made his announcement. A lot has changed and there are more challenges ahead for those of us using SUSE and Linux in our day to day lives. I am sure there will be bigger issues facing the *nix world than which desktop, in the coming years. We have DRM, Video Drivers, and the ever-real threat of malicious code sitting in front of us. Ill continue to use and support Linux as I have since I started using Mandrake in 98 and switched to SuSE in 04. -- kai
On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 07:58 -0700, Kai Ponte wrote:
Instead of working to fix the issue, he went ahead and focused scarce resources on another competing product. This has created a schism of sorts in the Linux world and has been pointed to me several times by people wanting to upgrade from Windows as a reason why they won’t or why [snip]
You make a number of valid points. The same could be said for a host of applications in the opensource world. I would, for example, love to see the recources put into rewriting sendmail, rather be spent in develping postfix. But see that becomes a matter of preference. I think for all the bad that gnome was (it has improved a lot), it served one important purpose. Had it not been for gnome, KDE would not have been anywhere near as good as it is today.
GNOME is – I’m sure – a fine desktop. I won’t use it because I feel it is blurry and puts a strain on my eyes when I look at it. KDE is also a fine desktop, which IMO is sharper and easier to read. I can't say I have that problem. In fact, I like Gnome as it is now, a lot. Was it not for that braindead file manager, I probably would have been using it over KDE.
I also believe the Qt licensing is a valid business model which deserves support and not ridicule. Agreed. I have stated before on this list and others my displeasure with people who can never stop complaining about things note being completely free/open. Like the nVidia and ATI drivers. We know they can't opensource the drivers, but still we keep on bitching and moaning about it.
Hans
Hans, sorry for the private post. I repost it to the list. On 4/18/06, Hans du Plooy wrote:
Agreed. I have stated before on this list and others my displeasure with people who can never stop complaining about things note being completely free/open. Like the nVidia and ATI drivers. We know they can't opensource the drivers, but still we keep on bitching and moaning about it.
Hans
I do agree that they can not open source the drivers, as some of the code is licensed from other vendors, etc. But this do not mean they can not release some documentation so an OSS driver can be created. They can limit this to older (more than 6 months) cards. But it is ridiculous to say that if they release the documentation, it's going to benefit the competitors. The competitors already have the resources to reverse engineer the product and to get what they need. -- Svetoslav Milenov (Sunny)
participants (3)
-
Hans du Plooy -
Kai Ponte -
Sunny