On Mit, 19 Mai 1999, you wrote: / Am Mit, 19 Mai 1999 schrieben Sie:
> Tom Berger wrote:
> >
> > Hi!
> > Mr Icaza, spokesman of the well-known
> > 'uh-it's-1.0-but-not-'really'-stable-yet' GNOME group has this to say
> > about KDE:
> >
> > "I don't think KDE has a future at this point, it's not
> > completely free yet and it's bound to a single
>
> There ARE still license problems with the newest license. And they
> haven't even distributed Qt source UNDER that license yet.
>
But there have been constant efforts to change that (Harmony, The Qt
Foundation). Qt has responded and had moved quite bit if you keep in mind
that they make their living from selling Qt.
As for the QPL, I don't see license problems with that one. What's wrong
with distributing patches instead of the modified source? It's not GPL,
but even Bruce Perens (sp?) accepted it on the grounds of Open Source. And
although Linus himself might not be expert on legal issues, I still like
this quote: "Everybody complaining about a licence issue is a whiner."
(Uh, Steve, this isn't intended to foul you, sorry!)
> > programming language in Unix. Gnome from the
>
> True. What if I don't WANT to use C++ for my GUI programming? I'm up a
> creek if I want to write to KDE.
>
What about the various wrappers/bindings for KDE (like Python and C)?
That's indeed what Icaza suggests: If you can't code C++ you can't write
programs for KDE. Sorry, that's not true. And I can't believe that Icaza
doesn't know that.
> And if I want it cross-platform? Has Qt been ported to Windows?
>
I am no expert but AFAIK Qt is designed to be cross platform.
> > very beginning has been accessible through any
> > language. We are providing the GUI for all the
> > languages and programmers can choose the
> > language they like the most," says Miguel.
>
> Sounds perfectly rational to me. Maybe a bit of salesmanship, but how
> else are you supposed to let people know why GNOME might be a better
> choice than KDE?
>
Sorry, but I disagree here again. Strongly.
This isn't another techie news article. It's on BBC. Many people
from the outside world read that. Of course, we know better. But they
don't. (Indeed this article speaks of GNOME as an 'operating system',
duh...). In every article where Icaza is featured it is constantly
acclaimed that GNOME is the first GUI ever to hit Linux. That's not only
unfair towards KDE but also in regard to all the other people who
developed window managers for *years*. And nobody of GNOME objects to
that. It looks like they want to change history.
And: would there have been a GNOME desktop at all without KDE? I doubt
it. And without the licence problems Icaza doesn't fail to mention
everytime? I doubt it. And without RedHats money? I doubt it.
I begin to recognize that is was no good idea to bring up that topic here
:-(. I am sorry but I was enraged. I suggest we return to the technical
stuff...
> --
> Steve Philp
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Regards
tom
--
"While the NT Testanlage an intensive Tuning experienced by Microsoft
specialists, at the Linux version one did not screw." (from Babelfish)
Thomas 'Tom' Berger, [EMAIL PROTECTED] No UCE. No spam. 'nuff said.
Questions? Answers! The a.o.l.m.-FAQ at http://aolmfaq.tsx.org
