
Corel Linux to be Based on Debian & KDE! 237
Martin
Bialasinski wrote in to send us a
press release
from Corel which says that future
their Linux upcoming Distribution will be based on
Debian (Yay!) and
KDE.
If a 6600 used paper tape instead of core memory, it would use up tape at about 30 miles/second. -- Grishman, Assembly Language Programming
KDE Corba (Score:1)
Gnome doesn't really do much with Corba right now, there's only the panel applets which wmaker has had for a long time without corba. The best use should occur at the application level, but this hasn't happened yet on either side (except for the alpha office applications on both sides)
But progress is being made both ways!
Pros and Cons (Score:1)
Anyway, after the first part of the installer reboots into the second part (where you select the root password), say NO to the option to select one of the many possible system configurations; enter dselect directly instead. Select the Access method (either apt for FTP or cdrom), then Update, then Select. In the Select screen immediately return to the menu (with RETURN); this selects a good set of base packages: gcc, emacs, etc (but no X). Install and configure these. (The configuration only requires configuring gpm, ibritish, exim, and maybe something else). Then exit dselect. Admittedly the exim configuration can be trying for newbies, however (I'm one too, really).
After this you can then build the system pretty much any way you want. To install X I just run dselect again, search for xf86setup, select it (which has many depends which are automatically selected), select my X server and a few fonts. I then run XF86Setup as root.
For Netscape, a similar process. dselect, search for communicator-smotif-45, select it (and its depends), and go.
BTW, I'm working on a docbook-formatted doc right now on all of this. If you or others think this would be helpful I can make a rough draft available... just email me @ crunge@mindspring.com
Thanks,
Chris
Corel using the best of the best (Score:1)
Personally, I like neither KDE nor GNOME, because I do everything in XEmacs under WindowMaker, but I can plainly see at this point that KDE is the most mature technology at this point, and my favorite desktop environment that is actually an entire application programming framework, GNUStep, is sadly the least mature.
I'm not sure what percentage of Slashdot's readership does GUI programming, but GTK+ really sucks for a lot of applications. It's about as OO in C as you're gonna get, but still not real OO (no inheritance for starters). Every application just ends up being a box in a box in a box....
Qt, GNUStep, Java/Swing, Common Lisp/CLIM or Garnet, are all so much nicer than GTK+. GTK+ is also unbearably ugly without the themes support.
And I know the old argument about GTK+ being better because it doesn't tie you to C because it has other language bindings. This is because GTK is based on C which is the lowest-level common denominator, and language support for more expressive languages with more features is far more trivial. How the hell do are you supposed to do QT object programming in C? Its features don't map to that language. Ditto for GNUStep.
Anyways, Gnome could take more interesting directions in the future so I won't write it off just yet.
Why not Yay for KDE CmdrTaco? (Score:2)
KDE is about to relase 1.1.1 with 2.0 already looking very promising. All releases of KDE have been very stable and easy to install.
Once again in the comments above we see some of the FUD surrounding KDE rear its ugly head. For the record:
To see just how advanced KDEs use of CORBA is check out KOM/OpenParts [kde.org]. KDE 2.0 will integrate the KOM technology throughout all of its applications. For those among you who like to see working code and not just talk, check out KOffice [kde.org]. This technology is very real and here today!
So join in CmdrTaco and applaud the KDE team for their work in putting a friendly face on Linux.
Re: KDE license issue (Score:1)
Microsoft Windows Update ...haha tard (Score:1)
Pull your head out (Score:1)
Please get a clue before posting crap like this.
Re: KDE license issue (Score:1)
Although there will soon be a DFSG-free Qt
Last I checked, KDE was addressing that by switching the license of most of their core stuff to Artistic (which works fine with the QPL). I don't know how far along they've gotten with this.
Re: A question (Score:2)
Exactly (Score:1)
rpm=yuck, deb=good!
Interesting (Score:1)
Putting everything in it's own dedicated directory almost starts to sound like one of those Microsoft schemes ... it's very different for sure ... but I like my binaries being installed in /usr/bin and /usr/local/bin and all those other places :-)
Reason for KDE (Score:1)
This will get people to give Linux a chance, and they'll give improvements to Wine/KDE back to the community so it's good. You are not forced to use their distribution to run Wordperfect. Ultimately, Linux is Linux.
Corel GNU/KDE/Linux (Score:1)
Push for using GUI tools? (Score:1)
The first time I installed RedHat, somewhere around 3.x, the first things I started looking at was how
Their books and documentation you get with the $30 probably detail how to use the GUI tools, but by no means are you stuck there. It's a good start for those without the experience, but by no means limiting to those of us with plenty of it.
Red Hat or Debian? (Score:1)
The folks (RH included) at Comdex basically swore to follow the LSB once it's release (6-12 months). So that argument is moot. But anyway, what's so different with the file structure? There's
Besides, variety is good. I don't want just one package format on the planet (either RPM or Debian), or one GUI, or one Web Browser.
Debian! (Score:1)
I've never had trouble with RPM's dependencies. If it says it needs XYZ package first, ok, download and install it. But it's good to have different packagers, choice is your friend.
*apt - Upgrades your system from debians ftp site whenever you like, with next to no user interaction
Isn't that one of the beefs with RedHat so many have, taking users away from the nitty-gritty? You put your trust again, in one organization that all the packages are compatible, aren't trojaned, etc. Do they have any testing or reviewing board before a package is listed on the ftp server?
*alternatives - have emacs & xemacs, multiple vi... dont just blindly use whatever Red Hat could be bothered to compile
*loads more packages - apt-get will normally get and install the packages.
So, there's 500 million programs out there that Debian doesn't compile for you. So that's bad? The wide array of packages is good and all still. But every distribution has their target audience (though users tend to want to impose them on everyone). RedHat strips theirs down a bit to make it manageable for those that don't know what everything is. There are still bazillions of RPMS around for everything else. And many, many anti-Redhat people talk how not learning to compile things is so evil, though I certainly find there's a market that doesn't want to compile things. But, these generalizations can be used against Debian just the same.
*accountability - if you find a bug, bug the package maintainer
You can just as well with any program in the world, if you know who wrote it. This isn't a Debian-specific plus. It's a feature certainly encouraged in the Open Source world. People provide the sources so they can be reviewed and critiqued by the public, and get feedback, both good and bad. Show those developers you love their program, not just when there's problems.
*integrated menu system - consistent across window managers
That's just a matter of config files. RedHat I believe just leaves many things in their default states. Which is suitable for me.
*consistency - tries to obey standards more.
Which standards does Debian or doesn't RedHat follow? FTP is a standard, yet the Debian install doesn't give you that choice (one feature I liked in RH's install for CDROM-less stations).
Certainly we need more structured organization, papers that say, "these sort of files go here," or "this protocol is how you drag/drop". Groups like LSB are starting that. Are there many other existing standards like this that one either does/does not follow? Basically, that's a vague statement without a little more specifics.
*sections - non-free and non-us are kept separately from DFSG free stuff.
That's nice. I'll give Debian that.
I'm getting tired. Anyway every distribution has their market. We don't need to sit and bicker over everything. A simple-man's distribution will have fewer packages to keep the new users confusion level down, and easier installation. A hard-core hacker's distribution will have tons of choices for those of us that like it. A PHB's distribution will have names like Corel, Sybase, whatever that they know and trust.
Use whichever is right for you. No one thing is right for everyone in every situation (even Linux).
You have no clue. (Score:1)
All the distributions have their own good/bad points. And there isn't one king of the distributions that everyone should use. All too often, when someone starts up another (or tweaks an existing) distribution, everybody jumps up and yell, "We've already got 1500 distributions (or one particular dist), go home!!" Each have their targetted audience (newbie, hacker, corporate, etc) and we should respect that. If one wants to target newbies and use KDE, great, more converts from that other OS. Rather, so many jump around, wave their hands, yelling, "Use GNOME!" or "GUIs suck, go text mode!" And where do we end up? Non-Linux people (PHBs for instance), just see us as rabid flamers that can't make up our minds.
My points in the post weren't to say everything Debian is worthless at all, but many of the points the original poster made can be applied to many distributions. The packaging system certainly seems very nicely organized for the best performance. I don't know everything about it, so I asked questions. I'm more than willing to be educated on anything. What happens? "Shut up." Yeah, real good PR those sort of comments can generate. We all need to be better advocates concentrating on the pluses of programs, less on the negatives ("XYZ sucks"). Oh, and provide concrete examples for arguments to say, "XYZ should be able to do feature ABC. It should do it like this," and provide code to back it up if you can (even pseudo-algorithms help for the non-programmers).
About the RPM problem, I've heard many people having it over the years. But I myself have never ran into it. I've installed, made my own, etc thousands of RPMs. I don't claim that the problem doesn't exist, just that I haven't had any problems with the system.
What I meant about FTP installing, was during the initial install. RedHat, for instance, has the choices for FTP, NFS, SMB installation instead of just the usual hard disk or cdrom. Heck, add more options to these, you never know what someone out there may need to get Linux installed. That is our goal here, to get more people to at least give us a try. These are a few things that every distribution could greatly benefit from. I had run into trouble with this when installing Debian on a spare PC without a CDROM. Sure doing an FTP install over a 28k modem is not practical, but I have other Linux boxes on my 100bT home LAN with CDROMs that served up very nicely in the RedHat based distributions I was toying with.
In conclusion, use what's right for you and for the job, not necessarily forcing anything down others' throats. This isn't Redmond, nothing works for every situation. And be a positive advocate for Linux and Open Source, it goes a long way.
learning new GUI curve (Score:1)
Certainly it's possible to learn, just that many people in corporations are stubborn about it. Every effort to make them that much more comfortable during a transition is appreciated.
Security and apt-get (Score:1)
All official Debian packages are PGP signed, I believe. Thus, there should be a way of setting up the system so that it installs packages only after authenticating them.
---
KDE license issue (Score:1)
The last time I talked with a KDE developer about this issue, he said they're sure that all the mess will be fixed with the release of KDE 2.0 (maybe before 2000). But that would be too far away.
It seems that QT2.0 will be released RSN, so that's another step in the good direction.
Debian? What's their target audience? (Score:1)
I wouldn't say Debian is a difficult distribution. I think people think it's difficult because of the lack of a general Control Panel Deluxe. They have to edit config files theirselfs, when there is no xxxconfig script available and the post-installation script happens not to suffice...
I think this is one of the things Corel is going to address: I guess they'll provide the newbie-user with some nice point-and-click configuration panel or something like that. Or maybe even a graphical installation thing based on the vga16 framebuffer thing that comes with the latest kernels... wouldn't that be nice? :)
Debian! (Score:1)
Yes they do. People have to become a Debian Developer before they can put packages in the distribution (==on the ftpsite). They have to give up their anonymous net-identity (at least, for their project related work). Every package they upload has to be signed with their pgp key, otherwise it won't be approved. This way 'mortal people' cannot put anything into the distro w/o getting trust from Debian prior to their contribution. I'm not talking about bugreports/-fixes etc. of course! But a maintainer has to agree with the contribution in that case before it is put on the ftp-site. This doesn't guarantee that no package is troyaned, however.
Anyway, people of course may use any distribution they like. Some like Redhat, some like Debian, others like XYZ. But that's no reason no to try to convince people who like something other than you do that they should use ZYX :)
Reason for KDE (Score:1)
Corel GNU/KDE/Linux (Score:1)
http://www.g4uol.demon.co.uk/cat.htm [demon.co.uk]
Applix, Symbol APLX is the only pure play. (Score:1)
Are there any rumors or anything about a linux player offering an IPO?
Reason for KDE (Score:1)
Good god! Of course... do some research, and you'll find the many many flaws in the Win95 GUI, mainly that is it a *badly* done knockoff of the MacOS. And as stated, Be and NeXT are also pretty good...
No! (Score:1)
OpenLinux isn't based on Red Hat; you're confusing it with an earlier Caldera product, I think.
TedC
Red Hat or Debian? (Score:1)
Debian is the future (Score:2)
Either Debian, or an effort like it, will eclipse Red Hat, not to mention Microsoft, and become the great fuel source for the network computing fire. Look for NCs, server appliances, and other 'preconfigured' solutions built upon it. Not to mention plenty of packaged software. And look for other kernels than Linux as well.
It definitely seems to me that if you want to be able to radically shape or reshape a distribution, you start off with Debian.
Is there an ETA on the death of dselect? (Score:1)
KDE vs. GNOME (Score:1)
Not quite. Both GNOME and KDE are desktop environments, which, AFAIK, means that they control things like drag&drop and cut&paste and generally how applications talk to each other.
KDE comes with its own Window Manager called KWM, but you can use any WM you like. GNOME doesn't have one of its own and you can use any one you like. Obviously WMs which are GNOME or KDE aware are best for the respective environments.
dylan_-
--
KDE Doesn't look like Windows! (Score:1)
The Amiga and OS/2 died of starvation because their bigots drove everyone else away. Don't do the same to Linux.
Hmm...I doubt it. The vast majority of users on any platform don't read or follow any particular newsgroup/forum/whatever. Slashdot, for instance, has, maybe, 60,000 readers? That's a tiny proportion of Linux users. We see the flames and all, but most people don't and choose their OS/platform/WM on merit or by what they're given by default...
dylan_-
--
Debian + KDE is good I suppose... (Score:1)
The packages are obviously still provisional, but they Work For Me[tm]..I finally dropped CVS builds last week for debs. No problems to report (except for gdm, which insists on starting the X server twice after I log out..) .
Daniel
Red Hat or Debian? (Score:1)
Daniel
Pros and Cons (Score:1)
User-friendliness pros:
- almost everything is automated. Package upgrading, documentation, menu systems, cronjobs, init scripts, MIME type handlers,
- cool bug-tracking system which lets you get directly to the maintainer of the package. It's nice knowing that someone is actually listening when you find a problem.
Cons:
- install process. The problem is not that it's ugly, the problem is that when it installs packages, it doesn't tell them that they're being installed as part of a new Debian installation. The result is that a lot of software (which the user might not even remember installing--what's 'gom'?? ) asks questions--not many, just one or two (like "should I start this on bootup") which the user may not have enough information to answer. This is perfectly OK when installing a program or two on a running system, but I've seen experienced Linux users beaten into submission after the 300th program asked them to configure a minor detail of its operation.
- dselect. Too easy for someone to screw their system up with a typo (I've seen people--again, experienced Linux users--fight with dselect. It works, sorta, once you're used to it, but most of the nastiness is gratuitous)
I have a possible solution to the first one..but it's not finished yet and I don't want to post the URL here lest my computer die a horrible death.
Daniel
Pros and Cons (Score:1)
wants to mount the CDROM elsewhere, and fails, because it is already mounted. This is Debian
2.1 by the way. It doesn't happen after the initial install process, but it does happen the first time
dselect comes up when installing.
Yeah, that's a bug.
2. dselect has more than once skipped over packages I told it to install.
*boggle*
What install method were you using? Did it give you error messages?
Apt will ignore attempts to install things that would leave the system in a broken state (I think there may be a forcing option..I never have a reason to use it)
3. I don't recall telling Debian to make X start automatically and unkillable on bootup, but it
decided to do it anyways.
You mean that you installed xdm? Have you tried '/etc/init.d/xdm stop' or 'dpkg --remove xdm'? [ hmm, perhaps this *should* be a question in dbootstrap somewhere.. ]
I think that the problem is not in general that there are so many packages available, but that so many of them require user input during install. Too many decisions to make on too little data (often it's not even obvious what the program that's prompting you *is*)
Daniel
Corel using the best of the best (Score:1)
GTK+ has inheritence. However, it's almost never necessary to use it. The object system itself has a number of features that other such systems don't necessarily have (like the ability to store arbitrarily keyed data on any object, or the ability to override the member functions for a single instance, essentially creating a one-member class) It's not a C++ object system but C++ isn't really the be-all and end-all of languages (although it's pretty good a lot of the time). [ it's also worth noting that in, eg, Python, using Python's inheritence mechanisms works perfectly with GTK+ objects--maybe a bad example though, since a lot of GTK+'s object mechanisms seem to be similar to Pythons to start with ]
I haven't found anything yet that GTK+ was particularly bad for. Now, I've seen poorly written (albeit working) GTK+ programs [gnomeicu comes to mind] but I can go write a bad Qt app too.
Daniel
You have no clue. (Score:1)
That said, I agree that the previous comment was overly inflammatory. I haven't personally installed RedHat, so I probably should keep my mouth shut about it.
Daniel
Corel, HCC, NetWinder (Score:1)
Corel [corelcomputer.com] has a vested interest in HCC [www.hcc.ca] and still appears to be actively involved in the NetWinder line.
KDE license issue (no such issue) (Score:1)
How do you think compilers get ported?
Therefore, what you say is not the litmus test Qt should pass, either.
Issue solved! (Score:1)
Issue solved! (Score:1)
"essential core components mean those parts without which you cannot reasonably expect any application to run on the operating system. "
"It means the compiler"
Sorry, but it's perfectly possible to run an operating system without it even having a compiler. I can run Linux without gcc just fine and dandy. I can't run Linux without installing it, though.
Issue solved! (Score:1)
If it is, since egcs is licensed under the GPL, all linux binaries are GPL.
I agree you can't run linux without some copies of crtbegin.o, but crtbegin.o is not the compiler.
No, when you can walk into... (Score:1)
BTW, the local MicroCenter(Comp USA semi-clone) has boxes of SuSe 6 up front and out in the open. Surprised the fsck out of me.
Corel GNU/Linux (Score:1)
The justification for the GNU moniker comes from (a) RMS's reasoning that the operating system is clearly distinct from the kernel, (b) the plethora of GNU O/S software common to all distributions, and (c) being based on a distribution that has chosen to include GNU in it's name.
I've been generally reluctant to call ANY Linux distribution GNU/Linux (unless that is what the distributer calls it, or it was produced under the auspiscies of the GNU Project), though I do think that RMS's technical arguments for doing so are sound. Furthermore, the GNU Project's championship of free software should get a bit more exposure in all this Linux hysteria.
So, while I think that Corel does not have to call its distribution Corel GNU/Linux, I would very much like if they did.
Corel GNU/KDE/Linux (Score:1)
Rip out the window manager and you have a fully functioning O/S.
Rip out the GNU code, and it all pretty much falls apart.
Of course, I would prefer that the GNU Project actually put together a distribution that could be called GNU/Linux (Debian's is close to this), with little justification for challenging that name. However, if they did, it would effectively be the common base for all other distros in that you could layer them over that base code. This happens now, in a virtual sense, hence the argument to call any distribution GNU/Linux.
I don't particularly think that argument is very strong, without a tangible GNU/Linux base, but I do think that if Corel is to build on an existing distribution that uses the GNU/Linux monkier, it should be retained.
Corel GNU/KDE/Linux (Score:1)
While KDE is not free, the information that makes the layering seamless can be.
Corel's distribution necessarily must be more than just Debian GNU/Linux + KDE. If not, then you could just get Debian GNU/Linux AND KDE from Debian themselves.
KDE is like the tail on the cat, helping it jump and keep its balance, whereas GNU is the legs, and Linux the heart. Chop a cat's legs off and it ain't going anywhere, no matter how fancy a tail it has. Chop it's tail off and its just clumsy.
Corel GNU/Linux (Score:2)
Even Debian offers non-free code, they just keep it separate from GNU/Linux.
As for the O/S being tightly bound to the kernel, this is simply not true (and the biggest reaason to separate the names of the two): the core GNU O/S code runs on either a Linux or HURD kernel. Furthermore, you could replace the GNU O/S code with equivalent BSD code and have a BSD/Linux system. From a technical point of view, there is a good deal of sense to such nomenclature.
We've just become accustomed to thinking that the distribtion bundler has done more "work" and thus deserves greater "credit" than the source of much of the code common to all distributions.
Finally, its the Free Software Foundation and not the free software federation. They do not fight internally: ESR (and open source) are quite distinct from RMS (and free software). The GNU Project releases code when it's damn good and ready, and of extremely high quality, I might add. The HURD is very much a worthwhile, and difficult, project, though I suppose only a hacker would appreciate the inherent beauty of it.
RMS's views are strong, and I don't agree with all of them (in particular that any distribution carry a GNU/Linux moniker), but they serve a very useful function of setting the standard by which all compromise must be measured. And yes, this necessarily means that they might not always be practical or convenient.
KDE license issue (Score:1)
--
Kevin Doherty
kdoherty+slashdot@jurai.net
Hooray. (Score:1)
Well, could've been better if they had used GNOME, but maybe they didn't think
it was mature enough.
NO that's world domination when... (Score:1)
Security and apt-get (Score:1)
Thus, there should be a way of setting up the system so that it installs packages only after authenticating them
It is done by default. If you want to install a package without authentication verification, you'll have to state so explicitly.
RPM vs DEB - it's not just the format (Score:2)
Actually, RPMs are in some ways superior to DEBs, in other ways inferior. A couple of things missing from the .DEB format:
What makes the Debian package management stand out is that it utilizes its features a lot more than, say, RedHat. For instance:
Corel KDE/Linux (Score:1)
They are even one version before RedHat (oneliner) (Score:1)
KDE vs. GNOME: a recap (Score:1)
GNOME is a more decentralized, but still complete, user environment. You have to choose which window manager you want, and there are several which have been made GNOME compliant, meaning they work trasparently with GNOME's desktop management features. GNOME also has a nice file manager as well, plus a bunch of nice apps. GNOME uses the Gtk+ widget set.
So you can see, these 2 desktop environments compete directly with each other.
MicroCenter (Score:1)
MicroCenter is still pretty expensive (compared to the prices I usually pay for stuff) but it still kicks CompUSA's butt when it comes to Linux, and intelligence of sales staff.
I've walked into a CompUSA which has only an outdated RedHat box w/manual (pricy) and found that the employees know nothing:
Q-"Hi, I'm looking for Linux, but without the manual. Just CD's in jewel cases"
A-"You want CD jewel cases? Over there", indicating empty jewel cases for sale.
Then I went to MicroCenter.
Q-"I'm looking for Linux"
A-"Aisle 5"
They had (last time I checked) RedHat, SuSE, the WalnutCreek BigOldDistro 4 CD set (yay!), TurboLinux and Caldera. I don't remember if they had a Debian CD from WalnutCreek or wherever, I think they did. I was very pleased
Hm. (Score:3)
RH: simpler install (largely because you don't need to figure out dselect, and there are far fewer packages to choose from). Overall a good distro, but you're pushed to use their graphical configuration tools -- which aren't bad per se, but can be annoying to those used to hacking config files. But the graphical network configuration, system configuration, services, etc. tools can be a real timesaver to someone not familiar w/the
Debian: Approximately equivalent package-wise to RH with the rufus rpm repository also in the distro
Question: in apt-get a security hole? How does it guarantee it's not fetching evil packages? Is it only because you implicitly trust the servers you set in your conf file? I've wondered this for a while...
KDE license issue (Score:1)
KDE license issue - isn't this a dead issue? (Score:1)
No. While the QPL (the license under which Qt 2 will be brought out), is a free license, it is not compatible with the GPL.
http://www.kde.org/kdeqtfoundation.html
This would only come into play if e.g. Troll Tech went bankrupt. Qt would then be released under the BSD license, which would resolve the issue.
Debian? What's their target audience? (Score:1)
Please note that Clueless Users Are Bad For Debian" [slashdot.org] was written by a Debian user, not a Debian developer.
Debian has always focussed on doing the right thing in technical manners. Many of its developers are long-time UN*X and Linux users, who go for flexibility and power, and are less likely to suffer from user unfriendliness. This doesn't make Debian inherently user-unfriendly. Debian is about open development [debian.org]. If you care about user friendliness in Debian, you're more than welcom to help out.
Red Hat or Debian? (Score:3)
There's also a Reasons to Choose Debian [debian.org] document on the Debian website.
KDE license issue - isn't this a dead issue? (Score:1)
with the GPL.
The plan is for KDE to change its license. That involves contacting many other free software developers who are not affiliated with KDE, though. Many KDE apps are based on other GPLed code, so the original authors must give permission for KDE to use their code under a different license. It's happening now, and the license should be resolved. Debian intends to include KDE with their main distribution when that happens, and they will include Qt 2.0 (the first QPL release).
noah
KDE vs. GNOME (Score:2)
Each environment has its own widget set (KDE is based on the C++ Qt library, GNOME is based on the C GTK library). There is no reason you can't have apps from both environments on your screen at once, but the point of each is to create a unified and consistant look & feel. You defeat this if you use both together.
By unified, consistant look & feel, I mean the same widget sets, but also communication between running apps. For example, if you're running KDE, and you use the control panel to modify the color settings of the environment, those changes will affect the entire environment, including apps that are currently on screen. But the changes wouldn't affect non-KDE apps. The opposite is true as well; GNOME changes to affect non-GNOME apps.
I think the big reason for the flamewars surrounding these environments is that having a unified environment makes it look like you're trying to eliminate apps that are not part of that environment. When you've got an all-KDE desktop, and then you introduce any non-KDE app, it's not gonna look right. It won't take on all of KDE's settings and things. So people feel like KDE is trying to claim exclusive rights to your desktop or something. I think the flamewars were really pointless and non-constructive. But the developers of both projects are attempting to resolve the issues so that KDE and GNOME can interoperate happily, and Troll Tech (the company that makes Qt) has modified its license to be more compatible with free software, so the flamewars should really be over at this point.
noah
Exactly (Score:1)
Both are pretty icky. I use the encap system of package management myself: www.encap.cso.uiuc.edu for more info.
Interesting (Score:1)
Ass for it sounding like a MS-type scheme, quite the contrary. It started out in many ways from the
Yes! (Score:1)
Very cool (Score:1)
Mouse problem (Score:1)
--
Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
MacOS, NeXt? (Score:1)
windows???? (Score:1)
windows???? (Score:1)
No, when you walk in compusa... (Score:1)
RH wants to dictate? (Score:1)
Red Hat pays people to develop GPL code and to work on the kernel full time. Evil, pure evil. Sheesh.
--
World Domination! (Score:1)
Linux is completely open, no secret hooks, no proprietary APIs or formats. It may become dominant, but it can't dominate. Other OSes will always be free to compete, especially if they provide their users with freedom.
--
Commonly used GNU tools (Score:1)
(IMHO, Emacs is also a "standard" part of most Un*x systems, and apparently lots of people get lost if their system doesn't include make, gcc, and libc header files. So even those "developer tools" should probably be a standard part of Corel KDE/GNU/Debian Linux (TM).)
RedHat does not own Gnome (Score:1)
Hm. (Score:1)
I'm pretty sure there is some security mechanism built in _somewhere_, as MD5 digests of all of the packages are built. These are likely used as some sort of digital signature.
KDE vs. GNOME (Score:1)
Ok, Rayban...KDE is not a GNOME-compliant window manager. KDE is a desktop environment all unto itself, providing a windowmanager (KWM), a file manager/web browser (KFM), and a slew of other programs, all unified under a common API. The idea is to provide a "Desktop Enviroment" (through providing a "Development Environment") that's conducive to interapplication communication and unification. If that sounds like marketing speak, think "embedding a spreadsheet into a word document". GNOME is not a widget standard; it's goals basically parallel those of KDE. The main differences are that GNOME doesn't supply a window manager...it tries to be fully compatible with several established window managers...and also GNOME is younger and thus basically has less finished. As I am not a developer, I cannot comment on the technical superiority of one or the other, so I respectfully won't even try. I'll let the KDE/GNOME flame-warrers take care of that.
AC: QT is a proprietary widget set (windows, buttons, menu objects, etc), and not a window manager. Also, saying that KDE and GNOME are NOT compatible is a pretty bold statement. One can certainly have both KDE and GNOME installed on the same system. One can even run GNOME apps at the same time as KDE apps. The only thing that's missing right now is communication between the two types of applications. And the developers of both systems keep repeating the mantra that they are "striving for compatibility". So eventually, it'll happen.
Debian? What's their target audience? (Score:1)
First, it's not an "admittedly complicated and difficult distribution"...it's not like www.debian.org has on it's front banner "The complicated and difficult distribution for hardcore linuxers". That was just some guy's opinion.
{FLAME OFF}
Debian's install is maybe one step behind RH, Caldera, and SuSE (ok maybe a step and a half behind Caldera's new install...haven't seen it yet). And there aren't many GUI tools for system configuration.
Anyway, shrink-wrapping such a distribution with a pretty install and some GUI tools is probably exactly what Corel wants to do...and will very much further the Linux cause.
Red Hat or Debian? (Score:2)
A Redhat User's Introduction to Debian [xoom.com]
Of course, as I type this members.xoom.com is down, so I can't guarantee that the link is still active. Basically, Debian's DEB package format is technically superior to the Redhat RPM format. Because of that, the Debian "apt" package-managing tool rocks.
Also, because Debian is completely non-commercial, they don't have the "support obligations" that Redhat has. So, Debian is blessed with the largest number of packages of any distribution out there. Let me clarify that...I'd wager that there are more RPMs on the whole than there are DEBs, but the majority of those RPMs are built by third-parties...people like you and me. Because packaging in general is a little tricky, and because there's no central point of coordination between the packagers, packages that _should_ work together sometimes don't.
Debian's different in that respect, that since they don't have to provide commerical support, they can basically include anything they want in their stock distribution. However, they make absolutely certain that every DEB package they maintain works perfectly with every other component in the system. Of course, if you regularly download packages from their unstable distrobution, you'll run into bugs from time to time. But, since Debian also maintains an awesome bug database, those bugs are likely fixed up within a day. Such is life in the unstable tree.
On the flip side, Debian probably requires a little more knowledge about your system than Redhat does...there aren't any GUI tools for handling things like your networking/printing/etc in Debian like there is in Redhat. Also, the install (while not insanely difficult) is not as "pretty" as the Redhat install.
Personally, I feel that Debian has the most advantages for someone like me...college student, experienced with Linux, blessed with a T1 connection. It is so easy to remain on the bleeding edge with Debian it is almost sinful. Of course, it's appropriate for plenty of other Linux users at the same time.
Debian has latest gnome packages! (Score:1)
QT Free edition is Free Software! (Score:1)
Damn right your no expert. I have the full source code to QT Free Edition 2.0 (CVS version), and I don't work for TrollTech. You can get it too, from http://www.troll.no/dl/qtfree-cvs.cgi
Like GPL'd software you aren't allowed to create (link) proprietary software with it. (Or more exactly than that you aren't allowed to distribute such proprietary software). In order to do that you must purchase the non-free version of QT which is distributed under a different license.
Tell your friends, tell the world! Why can't people understand this?
QT Free Edition (that KDE uses) is free software
Clarification (Score:1)
QT Free Edition 2.0 (that the developmental version of KDE, KDE 2.0 uses) will be free when officially released under the QPL, as promised by Troll Tech.
See http://slashdot.org/articles/98/11/22/1029225.sht
I guess most people aren't living on the edge like me and are in fact using the older version of QT which is proprietary.
I am using QT 2.0 from CVS, but I'm not certain that counts as an official release, and hence I'm not certain that it has been released under the QPL (yet).
Amen! (Score:1)
Excellent post. Completely agree.
driver on the card in FORTH (Score:1)
No GNOME 1.x debs? Where have you been? (Score:1)
Corel GNU/Linux (Score:1)
Debian is entirely free, without any commercial components at all. One could argue that Debian is really GNU/linux. (and they call themselves that) Corel is not Debian, they are making a new distro, with Debian's base.
As for GNU, reasoning that the operating system is seperate from the kernel is like reasoning that the processor is seperate from the computer. It's a part. just like your computer isnt a computer if it doesn't have a CPU, an OS is not an OS without a kernel. The free software federation is so busy fighting internally that it's a wonder they ever get around to releasing software. The way ESR and RMS are throwing invective around, now is not the time to point the spotlight at the FSF. Now is the time for the FSF to count ten, sit in the corner for the rest of class, and hopefully grow up a little. (and stop demanding that everything be called GNU/something.)
Debian + KDE is good I suppose... (Score:1)
I think this is because they don't want to put it in with broken dependencies and figuring out the dependencies of gnome is hard... but still, we're talking about the "unstable" distribution here.
I'm longing to be able to show off an appropriately-themed gnome/e setup to my co-workers (they were reasonably impressed with E.14's ugly defaults and gnome 0.99.3's broken setup from the latest unstable I tried, but themes wouldn't work and I couldn't change the gnome window manager from icewm.
It sucks, because that was something that would really have wowed people.
Stuart.
No, when you can walk into a grocery store... (Score:1)
Debian? What's their target audience? (Score:1)
Personally, for me, the switch from Debian to RH was an unpleasant shock ease-of-use-wise, and the switch from RH back to Debian was another unpleasant shock ease-of-installation-wise. For ease-of-use (once you get through the install), Debian *CANNOT* be beaten - since 1995 at least it has been able to automatically update itself to use the latest packages, something I've never seen in ANY other operating system, and it includes everything you can possibly think of.
I was recently working on my debian machine with a co-worker, trying to set up a program, and a suggested step was "run smbclient with these options".
smbclient: command not found
$ apt-get install smbclient
$ smbclient
My co-worker was dead impressed
I think debian is the ideal distribution to shrinkwrap - it provides the best underlying architecture I've ever seen, it just makes no attempt to hide the complexity of what you are doing. With Corel (hopefully) adding a nice installation interface specifically TO hide those complexities, we could finally get the perfect distro...
Stuart.
KDE Corba (Score:1)
Sure, most of it was always doable with plain X (I remember having xload swallowed in my fvwm panel thingy years and years ago) but the point is that this corba-based architecture is going on *everywhere* throughout GNOME. I prefer to think of GNOME as an application framework, not a desktop environment. The panel and control center are just tools written to that framework. That's why I personally prefer it over KDE - KDE is currently the better desktop environment, but GNOME is the better framework... and the desktop environment on top of it will come with time.
(but until it does, I'll use KDE)
Stuart.
OS/2? (Score:1)
Actually, the Presentation Manager came out in about 1989, so it took IBM six years to get it "right".
Unfortunately for OS/2, most people got their OS/2 lumps with version 2.x, where despite the "power" of PM it was nearly unusable out of the box. As crappy as the Windows 3.x GUI was, at least it had program icons people could find.
--
NO that's world domination when... (Score:1)
Newer Macs also support firmware drivers.
--
Not to introduce million of owned boxen on the net (Score:1)
So I personally praise this choice. Can you imagine what kind of publicity will linux get if 10000000 boxes will get owned???
Corel looks to be back on track... (Score:1)
-lx
Dselect ...not bad! (Score:1)
i picked up RedHat 5something last year, and tried it out. i got lost. because of the installer, i couldn't figure out what was going on. i never could get back to that same style package manager, either.
i gave up on RedHat, and this past october, got Debian 2.0. I love it. I love dselect. I was warned about it - but why!?! it's fabulous! i love debs, and i love alien for making those ever popular rpms into debs (you know, when you really want some piece o' software, and they don't have it in a deb... and source gets messy when you just want to run it for yourself to see if you like it...)
i don't know why people bash dselect so hard. dpkg isn't even THAT bad - at least not for small stuff. 'dpkg -i foo' is almost a reflex for me now...
Why YALD is good (Score:2)
IMHO, Yet Another Linux Distribution is not just a Good Thing, it's a GREAT Thing. Why? Because it brings us one step closer to operating systems becoming a commodity. That means no more OS tax when you buy a computer. I imagine a future in which my children laugh at us and say, "You guys paid HOW MUCH for an OS? And you didn't even get the source code with it? And you couldn't customize it or fix it yourself? I guess you all smoked crack back then, huh?"
So, bring 'em on! Let every company from Adobe to Zenith release Linux distros. Their development costs for this are minimal (probably quite a bit less than a writing a new product from scratch), so they have very little to lose.
"What about standards?" I believe that distros which break standards will get killed in the marketplace. People won't buy a distro on which nothing runs. This is NOT the traditional model, remember? In fact, it's probably closer to a "free market" than anything we've seen in software.
When I can walk into a grocery store and buy a Linux distro -- THAT's world domination!
New Linus Distribution (Score:2)
Yahoo News : Strategic Alliance Between Corel, KDE and Debian to Advance Development of a New Linus Distribution [yahoo.com]
Yes! The new Linus will be 6'2, blonde hair, blue eyed and *ahem* Canadian!
Red Hat or Debian? (Score:2)