Freesoft vs. Microsoft 53
elam writes "The cover of this month's
Tech Review
is a boxing match mock-up "face-off" btwn Gates and Torvalds and reads "Freesoft VS Microsoft".
The main article is good (and it's online), it talks a lot about GNOME, GNU, a bit about KDE, but has interviews with the man himself (Linus), Stallman, Eric Raymond and a boatload of other Linux devotees. Good reading for all."
Here come all the KDE zealots (Score:1)
Re: Standard? Riiiiight (Score:1)
Since when has there EVER been a standard desktop on UNIX?
Since May 20, 1998. That was the day the Unix98 standard was relesed. In the workstation portion of the standard, it identifies CDE, running on Motif and the X Window System as the standard Unix desktop.
Personally, I refuse to accept CDE as my desktop, and I would like to see healthy Free alternatives (such as GNOME, GNUStep and KDE) both competing and collaborating as a choice of desktop environments. None of them can be the standard, because the Open Group sets the standard, and they will never accept any of them.
slashdotted? (Score:1)
It ought to be illegal to post stories containing 2 or more of the following on the front page of
1) Linux vs. Bill
2) Opensource vs. CLosed Source
3) KDE & Gnome
4) Interview with [linux/rms/esr/etc]
Oh well, I'll read it later I guess.
Chill Dude (Score:1)
Think happy thoughts! Happy happy Happy HAppY HAPPY HAPPY GODDAMMIT I'M HAPPY! HAHAHAHAHAHA! (strokes fluffy white cat named "Precious" and pushes evil buttons).
RMS slanders himself. (Score:1)
RMS deserves a lot of credit for starting this movement. He also deserves a lot of ridcule for trying to exert exclusive control over it. Get over it, RMS, the movement is bigger than just you now, and if you aren't big enough to accept the fact that this means there will be some people in it that you don't like, then up yours. Welcome to the real world, where you can't control what everybody says and thinks, and where people don't want to fund software with a FSF tax. Why trade one unfair software tax for another? You shouldn't have to pay for what don't use - it's true for Microsoft and its true for the FSF also.
Site has moron marks. (Score:1)
GPL is the WINDOZE of software licenses (Score:1)
Unfortunately, this has to be said abou the GPL.
One thing the Linux community stands for is FREEDOM OF CHOICE.
However, with the GPL, we have no choice whatsoever -- use ten lines of GPL code in our program and we have to make it GPL. Linking such a program to a non-GPL library and you cannot redistribute the result (unless you own the rights to the GPL code mentioned).
Its worth discussing this, since we may end one 'lack of choice' only to be trapped by another one
p.s. Take this a Devil's advocate statement, since I myself support GNU/Linux, but openly support the idea of more than one free software license.
Qt2.0 Beta (Score:1)
The KDE people need to draft some ammendments, call these the 'KDE Qt/GPL software ammendments' or somehting similar, and then allow people to
say (This program may be distributed under the GPL, they following may also be applied by whoever distributes the program... (quote KDE stuff)).
Think about this a little, and bear in mind
that the GPL only disallows additional restrictions, not additional permissions
You don't get it. (Score:1)
the Qt license, then go Gnome and revel in your supposed
superiority over the rest of us.
Right now, I'm thankful I have a
decent, STABLE system like KDE (unlike the bug-ridden
crashfest known as Gnome...say, what functions failed to resolve
in libgtk today?). You don't mind a constantly crashing desktop?
Have fun.
I don't have a
problem that Gnome exists, unlike you Gnome fanatics
Make your mind up.
Daniel
How can someone... (Score:1)
I won't even try to dissect the dozen lies or attempts at searing there are in this utterly worthles post, but I will say this: The page he says smears RMS is an interview. With him.
How can someone... (Score:1)
On other notes: "Qt has not delievered (whatever)" Qt is not a company, TT is.
TT has promised that Qt 2.0 will be released under a open source license. Qt 2.0 has not yet been released (it is available as a beta, though), so where is the lie in that?
Finally: the chance of KDE going commercial is less than the chance of the FSF going commercial.
At least the FSF owns copyright of its software, while KDE's belongs to each of the hundreds of contributor.
The QPL (Score:1)
As for KDE's switching to Artistic, several pieces already have, didn't you look?
Copyright assignment (Score:1)
GNOME code?
I would be very surprised since there is at least one piece of it that asks for copyright assignment to someone else (libart)
Freesoft vs. Microsoft: What a software war! (Score:1)
Anyone get the starting music of Star Wars anywhere? That's the music to go with the story...
RMS' typing problems (Score:1)
This article was the first time that I had read that RMS had developed a disability that made it painful to type. I know that a condition that prevented me from typing on my computer would drive me crazy. This makes me want to look into getting some sort of ergonomic keyboard.
Anyone know what he uses now? Voice recognition software?
This suites the mainstream. (Score:1)
1 : KDE works already and a system with KDE preloaded is a credible contender on the desktop.
2 : Gnome verbally promises to be better than KDE and everything else.
3 : The Gnome Design is _not_ so spectacularly superior as to render KDE obsolete. In fact once you get past the stability and License issues. Gnome vs KDE becomes a simple matter of taste. No major objective superiority just "Well I like the Gnome theme manager or I prefer the KDE PPP Dialer".
4 : Gnome is Alpha ( BETA is when the whole thing is frozen and only bugfixes are going into CVS ) Therefore any Semi clued person who tries to install it today will suffer for it and possibly hate the system.
All these things taken together mean that Linux is an unfulfilled promise, just like Windows "Look how long we have been waiting for a desktop".
They mean that the well hyped "way of the future" will be a massive letdown. Gnome is impressive on it's own. To someone who already has a Working KDE installation it's just an alternative with no clear advantages.
Most important, it lets the apparent feud within the community flourish.
Technology Review (Score:1)
Agreed. (Score:1)
Btw, panel crashed my X at least 2 times. And rename that damn thing gpanel, please.
-N.
gnome is more expensive than windows NT. (Score:1)
Linux is great, it runs fast even on old hardware. Efficency and low overhead are 2 thing that characterize linux during. Let's put linux on a slightly older machine, like this:
Pentium 150
32MB Ram
2MB VRAM
2GB Hard Drive.
This computer will get the job done, and be nice and responsive. Now, lets load gnome onto it. But we know that X in general is a memory hog, so let's bump the ram up to 128MB which should be plenty. Let's also run it as a decent resolution, for this we need a better video card, let's go with an older 4MB card; say a Number Nine GXE64 Pro. Not a bad little card. Ok, now linux runs great. Start gnome... HOLY F**K*NG S**T, I can actually see it drawing the menus on the screen for gnome panel. AAARRRGGGHHH, I just tried to resize the gmc window. It should start responding again in 5 seconds or so.
Gnome is the most inefficent desktop environment I've ever used, Lose95/98/NT are WWAAAYYY faster on this hardware. M$ forces hardware upgrades by bogging down your machine. Gnome does the same, but to a more insulting degree. I'm not going to upgrade just so I can have GTK+ Themes. I guess this is what happens when all the programers testing gnome on their octuple processor 8000 gigahertz workstations with 4 terabytes of ram dont' test it on older hardware.
Linux make a great server, because it can use hardware considered out of date by NT people. Linux may be free, but if you want a workstation it's going to cost you a testicle in hardware upgrade fees.
While not the fastest thing around, KDE is at least responsive, functional, and productive. I've used it since the 1.0beta1 days on the above hardware. It's very productive for programming, graphics manipulation, and data processing & vizualization. Gnome loses lots of points and people because they can't afford to upgrade to be productive on it. In that regards Gnome is NOT free for most people. In fact it's even for expensive than Window 9* or NT. I'll upgrade someday, after I finish school, get a job, sell my first 2 children. Then I'll try gnome again, until then I'll use something free and productive.
Andrew
KDE is bad (Score:1)
Slashdotted! (Score:1)
/. effect (Score:1)
*whimper*
So what if its old... (Score:1)
Linux, and other participating projects in the free code movement are all new to me. This is a very interesting article to found out what my new experimental operating system is all about. It's nice to know a projects roots. Whereas with something like MS-Win95's history isn't taken. Probably that has to do with the fact that it was bought, but you never know.
Great article...thanks for the heads up.
Uh, haven't we seen this story before? (Score:1)
Why so pissed? (Score:1)
By the way, this article is over a month old.
Ethics Study... (Score:1)
I'll post some notes about our discussion of this topic after class Thursday.
Thanks Slashdot!
Good article (Score:1)
>The notion of a small band of unpaid part-timers >challenging one of the world's most
>dominant corporations may seem absurd...
"That's the way UH HUH UH HUH I like it UH HUH UH HUH!"
Linux Article in Tech Review (Score:1)
Typical. (Score:1)
especially when I have nothing close to compare.
After using -and loving- KDE, I don't really care
when or if GNOME is available. Probly will try it tho.