X11 GUI Support (was Re: X11 bashing)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Well, good discussion everyone, a pleasure to read it. The lacks of weel integrated GUI tools in X is volunteers but who knows a Windows System that run on most Unix System (including Linux, A/UX, FreeBSD, AIX, Sun, WindowsNT) and are distributed (a very painful, hard to maintain but powerful caracteristic)? X aren't to be change. It has to be complete with a mostly standard toolkit for GUI programmers. That's what the caracteristics I would like to find in this toolkit and if some already exist who has all those, it will be a good thing if Debian support it : 1) Open Free Standard. That means you can develop something absolutely free from it, with no restriction! It means too that, with all the standard already existing, I don't think we have to reinvent the wheel (to use a French expression that I don't know if I can translate ;). Other advantage of Open Standard is that you can ease software develop on other machine/OS and easily put it on Linux, a most performing system. That's help too to reduce the number of libraries on one system. X are already big enough! 2) Ease of development and maintainance. Object oriented? Not necessarely. Has someone says, C is standard and mostly use for almost software but Objects are supposed to be easier and C++ and Objective-C support C very well. 3) Good integration Why need a pretty GUI if we can't cutpaste between each windows. CORBA, OLE, etc. are some standard for IPC but first, each process has to know basically how to communicate between each other. 4) User configurable Because we prefered to (don't) have a big dock on the right side of us 13 monitor, we prefered (not) to have that or this in the pop-up root menu, we (don't) want a tool bar, a small (large) grey (blue) bordure on us windows and one (three) button to close (resize, quit) the window in its upper right corner. 5) Freeness Need to discuss about it? Well, that's the main three I can extract from the discussion... I don't want to go further because it can be subversive. Let's see now the different solutions already purpose. Motif: 1) Already an open standard mainly free altought that the only free version of the libraries are still in beta development. 2) Not yet ease to develop but a good object wrapper (like Object Windows for the WinAPI; I don't think that MFC are good objects... their have lot of bad scheme in it) can really ease the process and use the same library. But that can be apply to almost everything. Motif aren't a kind of wrapper around Xlib, is it? 3) Permit it in an entirely Motif interface. 3) Not as well as I would like but can be. 4) see 1) :) GNUStep: 1) See Motif 1)... 2) Is Objective-C... that's a plus and a weakness. A plus because Objective C are a pretty well done Object language and permit some real object oriented (loose binding) development. Weak because you are mainly restrict to write it in this language, who aren't well supported by most entreprise. But may be I'm wrong here. If someone can correct me :) 3) That's the goal of NextStep and the main domain of Jacob's expertise. 4) Well, GNUStep defined their own goal to be more open and configurable then NextStep already was. It can be good thing. 5) That's GNU stuff :) JAVA Desktop (surprised?): 1) Java are a well known standard, although young. 2) Never see a easiest and as powerful language than Java. It's supported integration of C function and can be exported in C programs. Like GNUStep, you are dependant of a Java Workspace for a well integrated system. Another point, Linux dis you would like to see Corel Suite running on a Linux Box? That can be possible. 3) Well done. 4) Still to be implemented but the java-VM are just going out the box... It can be really improved. 5) Java are kind of free. I don't think the Java license are too mush restrictive and avoid the GPL... ... I don't talk about V++, KDE or QT cause I don't know it well... For myself, the Java Desktop are my own project then I'm working on it (Learning Java are good for job, although I'm studying in `electrical' engineering.. :). If some `autonomous volunteer' want to contrib. I'll be happy to heard about you :). Pleasure to read your replies to this mail. Fab - --- Linux - because reboots are for hardware upgrades -- Edwin Huffstutler [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- - --- Fabien Ninoles aka Baffouille || Running Debian-Linux [EMAIL PROTECTED]|| Lover of MOO, mountains, http://www-edu.gel.usherb.ca/ninf01 || poetry and Freedom. - --- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBMpR1d1X6fc7jcjhFAQEr1AP/W1qp2eOOaxI5qipOmowbJ+XhcFqvSsEv 65nbJTUzT1T53So8tJwICSEqAQ624x1Zj3Qv7nPUnHhyO8bWfuulFbClEdR37W/J FdJyy0aLOrMmj+GXGoaA5CoT9JgnUTcGgrVU9OVo1QiV7EoomePMn6e3BYUNrsgX
Re: X11 bashing
Larry == Larry 'Daffy' Daffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Larry Martin Konold writes: - In contrast to motif Qt is fully C++ OO. Larry Buzzword bingo. Just because it's written in C++ doesn't Larry mean it's better. - Qt comes with source. Larry My mistake. I was under the impression that Qt was Larry binary-only. Sorry. But the source distribution is a sham, Larry since you can not distribute modified copies of Qt. All Larry you can do with said source is submit patches to them, Larry which become part of Qt, and are subject to the same Larry restrictions. So basically, with the source you have the Larry right to work for TT without them paying you. I'm curious. Is anyone using V++? When I begin learning C++, I think that V++ is the toolkit I will look into first. It uses Athena 3d widgets; which could be extended and improved, from what I gather. I like how Athena widgets, under GWM, can be moved around by the static parts of the interface, allowing frameless windows. When I'm ready to; when I learn more scheme/lisp, I want to make a tabnotebook frame type for windows under GWM++. -- Karl M. Hegbloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.teleport.com/~karlheg (K0D) AYG-GE01 Portland, OR, USA :) Proudly running Linux 2.0.25 transname and Debian GNU public software! -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: X11 bashing
Personally having looked at Qt and KDE I am waiting to see what comes out of the Hyperion project. For those who haven't heard of it, it is a multi platform development system written at the NCSA as is going to be used in the latest version of Xmosaic among other things. It is similar in design to Qt but I suspect will have a better licencing agreement. The big downside with it is that it isn't finished yet but such is life. Joe. I don't think it's going to be free. I'll copy a message from off of the Hyperion project users mailing list. Cheers, - Jim I'm not sure one way or the other but I consider that it may be worth taking a look at it when it gets here. But since it will likely be a while it's hard to say. Joe. --- Forwarded Message From: Scott Powers [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Copyright Questions To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Users) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 03:05:03 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Precedence: bulk Let me try to say this without stepping on anyone's feet...especially my own or anyone's at NCSA. ;) I believe (think, don't really know for sure, but almost do) Mosaic 3.0 will be released as your standard free-type software stuff. I'm not for sure, but it looks like it will. Now, X Mosaic will be slightly different. The libraries being developed along-side the main source modules will more than likely reside under the no commercial usage--you gotta license it kind of license, but general public access to them etc. This is a gray area right now as we haven't gotten far enough along to really worry about it. It is quite possible that we will be lifting the libraries out of the Mosaic project and into another...thus the reason for the seperate licensing stuff. Note that I did say possible...that's because the future projects have yet to be approved. In other words...it's really to early to even worry/speculate about it. NCSA has always made public service code a part of its mission and will continue to do so. Scott P.S. In the words of American McGee (iD Software), Everything I've just said could be a complete lie. ... and in my own, Yeah, what he said. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Scott W. Powers, NCSA X Mosaic Project Lead and NCSA HTTPd Project Lead, National Center for Supercomputing Applications, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign a href=http://shire.ncsa.uiuc.edu/;Cyber Doors!/a --- End of Forwarded Message -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: X11 bashing
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: --==_Exmh_2037100310P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii [ Please don't Cc: me when replying to my message on a mailing list. ] Larry 'Daffy' Daffner: I still haven't seen a valid reason to support KDE/Qt. It looks better than Athena widgets. :-) (I use xaw95 myself. I haven't tried Qt or KDE, nor am I interested in with the current copyrights.) Personally having looked at Qt and KDE I am waiting to see what comes out of the Hyperion project. For those who haven't heard of it, it is a multi platform development system written at the NCSA as is going to be used in the latest version of Xmosaic among other things. It is similar in design to Qt but I suspect will have a better licencing agreement. The big downside with it is that it isn't finished yet but such is life. Joe. cc: Subject: -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: X11 bashing
Qt forbids anybody from modifying their source code. So what if they changed their license when they've gained enough momentum? As far as I understand it, you can release code with a new licence, but you cannot change the licence on released code. Thus, if they changed their licence we would be stuck with the older code. I don't believe that that is correct. As copyright owner, they can license it anyway they want. What they can't do, however, is change an existing license without the consent of the licnsee (you). If you have a license saying you can use it for noncommercial use without modification, they can't say that you can't use it for noncommercial use. However, they can issue a -new- license to modify it, if they wish. In other words, they can GPL the old code if they want. I believe something similar happens like that with gs from Alladin. Brian ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) --- Generated by Signify v1.01. For this and more, visit http://www.verisim.com/ -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: X11 bashing
[ Please don't Cc: me when replying to my message on a mailing list. ] Martin Konold: So [Qt] is really free and can be well used for gpled sw. Well, yes, for some definitions of the word free. Free is one of those words that everyone likes to define for themselves. For Debian, the relevant question is whether the package can go into the main Debian distribution, or whether it should be put into contrib or non-free. The answer is found in the policy manual, chapter 2, Package copyright (see /usr/doc/dpkg/policy.html): All packages in the Debian distribution proper must be freely useable, modifiable and redistributable in both source and binary form.[1] It must be possible for anyone to distribute and use modified source code and their own compiled binaries, at least when they do so as part of a Debian distribution. Qt is clearly not suitable for the Debian distribution proper, since we can't modify it ourselves. It belongs to contrib or non-free, instead. As it happens, Troll Tech have said it's OK to put it into contrib. This is good, because then it goes onto more CD's. Packages that use Qt can't go into the Debian distribution proper, either: Packages [- - -] * which depend for their use on non-free or contrib packages[2] [- - -] may only be placed in the semi-supported contrib section of the Debian FTP archives (unless they need to be in non-free - see above). This means that in Debian, KDE goes into contrib. Too bad. There's a number of other toolkits that could have been used, such as V. I don't know about their relative qualities, but the copyright issue is enough to kill interest in Qt and KDE for a large number of people. -- Please read http://www.iki.fi/liw/mail-to-lasu.html before mailing me. Please don't Cc: me when replying to my message on a mailing list. pgp5g6dC6WI1M.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: X11 bashing and freeness
I strongly doubt that KDE has the momentum to succeed. It's based on Qt, which is a proprietary standard. Granted the implementation is delivered 'free for noncommercial use', but I don't see that as a significant difference. It's still a proprietary toolkit, which will keep the GNU crowd disinterested, as well as making it inappropriate for Debian proper. In contrast to motif Qt is fully C++ OO. Qt comes with source. Any gpled sw can be distributed with soure or binary of Qt. Just building proprietary sw without source.. cost money. So it is really free and can be well used for gpled sw. No, it's not free! You are not free to use it every way you wish. There are significant restrictions (namely that it can only be used without-monetary-cost with other without-monetary-cost software). Brian ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) --- In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they're not. -- This message was distributed manually by [EMAIL PROTECTED] after the list initially failed to distribute it.
Re: X11 bashing
Martin Konold wrote:
On Fri, 15 Nov 1996, Larry 'Daffy' Daffner wrote:
- Have look at the kde project.
[ Stuff snipped ]
I strongly doubt that KDE has the momentum to succeed. It's based on
Qt, which is a proprietary standard. Granted the implementation is
delivered 'free for noncommercial use', but I don't see that as a
significant difference. It's still a proprietary toolkit, which will
keep the GNU crowd disinterested, as well as making it inappropriate
for Debian proper.
In contrast to motif Qt is fully C++ OO.
Qt comes with source. Any gpled sw can be distributed with soure or binary
of Qt.
Just building proprietary sw without source.. cost money.
So it is really free and can be well used for gpled sw.
Qt forbids anybody from modifying their source code. So what
if they changed their license when they've gained enough momentum?
--
Debian GNU/Linux 1.1 is out! { http://www.debian.org/ }
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmVHI~} [EMAIL PROTECTED]
{ http://greathan.apana.org.au/~herbert/ }
PGP Key: [EMAIL PROTECTED] or any other key sites
--
This message was distributed manually by [EMAIL PROTECTED] after the list
initially failed to distribute it.
Re: X11 bashing
Martin Konold writes: - In contrast to motif Qt is fully C++ OO. Buzzword bingo. Just because it's written in C++ doesn't mean it's better. - Qt comes with source. My mistake. I was under the impression that Qt was binary-only. Sorry. But the source distribution is a sham, since you can not distribute modified copies of Qt. All you can do with said source is submit patches to them, which become part of Qt, and are subject to the same restrictions. So basically, with the source you have the right to work for TT without them paying you. - Just building proprietary sw without source.. cost money. - So it is really free and can be well used for gpled sw. These two lines are directly conradictory. Qt is not 'free'. You can not modify and distribute Qt. You can not do anything at all with the source except compile it, and perhaps work for TT for free by providing them with patches. - Motif is outdated and broken in my eyes. How is Motif 'outdated and broken'? Details, please. - Lesstiff suffers a lot from beeing forced to implement all these crippled - c stuff. - Qt if fully C++ Yet another strawman. C is perfectly acceptable for the kernel and 99.999% of the programs running on your machine. If you feel so strongly that C is 'crippled', then you'd better start coding, because you have a lot of programs to rewrite on your system :). Besides, a large number of C++ compilers just turn it into C and compile the C anyways. So your argument here basically boils down to 'I'd rather write programs in C++ so everyone else should too.'. I still haven't seen a valid reason to support KDE/Qt. -Larry -- Larry Daffner| Linux: Unleash the workstation in your PC! [EMAIL PROTECTED] / http://web2.airmail.net/vizzie/ Hare's Law: Inside every large program is a small program struggling to get out. -- This message was distributed manually by [EMAIL PROTECTED] after the list initially failed to distribute it.
Re: X11 bashing
[ Please don't Cc: me when replying to my message on a mailing list. ] Larry 'Daffy' Daffner: I still haven't seen a valid reason to support KDE/Qt. It looks better than Athena widgets. :-) (I use xaw95 myself. I haven't tried Qt or KDE, nor am I interested in with the current copyrights.) -- Please read http://www.iki.fi/liw/mail-to-lasu.html before mailing me. Please don't Cc: me when replying to my message on a mailing list. pgp3mNFZ4veKb.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: X11 bashing
Qt forbids anybody from modifying their source code. So what if they changed their license when they've gained enough momentum? As far as I understand it, you can release code with a new licence, but you cannot change the licence on released code. Thus, if they changed their licence we would be stuck with the older code. Brian ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) --- Generated by Signify v1.01. For this and more, visit http://www.verisim.com/ -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: X11 bashing
On Fri, 15 Nov 1996, CoB SysAdmin wrote: I cannot believe that after HOW MANY years of development, X windows is still such a completely inconsistent and painful user interface. This is a true problem which last from the fact that X11 is seperated from the stadart toolkit Motif (which is payware) Well, you have to understand that, when MIT started developing X, the intention was to provide, in their words, Mechanism, not policy. Basically, this means that they wanted to provide a GUI environment without imposing any particular GUI conventions on it. It was completely open. There is now the qt based kde (kool desktop environment) project. It tries to handles these problems. Kde is fully OO and free. Have a look at: http://www-pu.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/users/ettrich/kde.txt or http://fiwi02.wiwi.uni-tuebingen.de/kde/index.html or http://www.zws.com/kde/ and http://er4www.eng.ohio-state.edu/~cooperb/kde/style.html Yours, martin -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: X11 bashing
Martin Konold writes: -!! There is a solution up and coming !! - - Have look at the kde project. [ Stuff snipped ] I strongly doubt that KDE has the momentum to succeed. It's based on Qt, which is a proprietary standard. Granted the implementation is delivered 'free for noncommercial use', but I don't see that as a significant difference. It's still a proprietary toolkit, which will keep the GNU crowd disinterested, as well as making it inappropriate for Debian proper. So, you replace an 'open', well known API with a proprietary implementation (and the rapidly developing lesstif) with a proprietary, unknown API with an open distribution model. Not a significant win in my eyes. Perhaps a more well-guided effort would be to assist the lesstif project, and build a free CDE workalike based on lesstif. The advantage here is that you get to keep the more well-known, standard Motif API, which will breed developer familiarity (as well as being able to build on already avaliable free Motif software), and end up with a truly free, unencumbered desktop. KDE is a nice effort, granted. I'm sure the people involved have put a good amount of work into it. However, due to the restrictions on Qt, the basis for KDE, I have serious doubts about any momentum KDE will gain, and don't think it's appropriate as part of Debian proper. Just my $.02 -Larry -- Larry Daffner| Linux: Unleash the workstation in your PC! [EMAIL PROTECTED] / http://web2.airmail.net/vizzie/ C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes it harder, but when you do, it blows away your whole leg. -- Bjarne Stroustrup on C++ -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: X11 bashing
On Fri, 15 Nov 1996, Larry 'Daffy' Daffner wrote: - Have look at the kde project. [ Stuff snipped ] I strongly doubt that KDE has the momentum to succeed. It's based on Qt, which is a proprietary standard. Granted the implementation is delivered 'free for noncommercial use', but I don't see that as a significant difference. It's still a proprietary toolkit, which will keep the GNU crowd disinterested, as well as making it inappropriate for Debian proper. In contrast to motif Qt is fully C++ OO. Qt comes with source. Any gpled sw can be distributed with soure or binary of Qt. Just building proprietary sw without source.. cost money. So it is really free and can be well used for gpled sw. So, you replace an 'open', well known API with a proprietary implementation (and the rapidly developing lesstif) with a proprietary, unknown API with an open distribution model. Not a significant win in my eyes. Motif is outdated and broken in my eyes. Lesstiff suffers a lot from beeing forced to implement all these crippled c stuff. Qt if fully C++ Just my $0.02 Yours, -- martin // Martin Konold, Muenzgasse 7, 72070 Tuebingen, Germany // // Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] // Linux - because reboots are for hardware upgrades -- Edwin Huffstutler [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Just go ahead and write your own multitasking multiuser os ! Worked for me all the times. -- Linus Torvalds -- -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: X11 bashing
I strongly doubt that KDE has the momentum to succeed. It's based on Qt, which is a proprietary standard. Granted the implementation is delivered 'free for noncommercial use', but I don't see that as a significant difference. It's still a proprietary toolkit, which will keep the GNU crowd disinterested, as well as making it inappropriate for Debian proper. In contrast to motif Qt is fully C++ OO. Qt comes with source. Any gpled sw can be distributed with soure or binary of Qt. Just building proprietary sw without source.. cost money. So it is really free and can be well used for gpled sw. My personal goals include developing GPL'd freeware as well as commercial software. So I don't think that I will be using KDE or Qt (even though they might be very nice). Cheers, - Jim -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: X11 bashing
Hi there, This message was definetelly not appropriate for [EMAIL PROTECTED] I even do not know if it is for [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is there still a debian-talk list? I cannot believe that after HOW MANY years of development, X windows is still such a completely inconsistent and painful user interface. This is a true problem which last from the fact that X11 is seperated from the stadart toolkit Motif (which is payware) The STUPIDITY of the whole thing is frustrating. Yes this is also true. There is no orthogonal user interface. Text fields between applications do not work the same. One is not guranteed to be able to copy/paste text between fields. Some fields must have the mouse pointer within them during the editing process, some don't. This is due to different toolkits. There is no inter-application communication or awareness to speak of. This can be handled via sockets,fifos,ipc... [lot of stuff about deficiencies of X11 based desktops] !! There is a solution up and coming !! Have look at the kde project. You will find kde mirrors at the following locations: ftp://fiwi02.wiwi.uni-tuebingen.de/pub/kde/ -- primary site ftp://ftp.net.lut.ac.uk/kde/ ftp://ftp.nvg.unit.no/pub/linux/kde/ WWW info can be found at: http://www-pu.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/users/ettrich/kde.txt http://fiwi02.wiwi.uni-tuebingen.de/kde/index.html http://www.zws.com/kde/ http://er4www.eng.ohio-state.edu/~cooperb/kde/style.html There is a nice screenshot of an already working kde (kool desktop environment) http://fiwi02.wiwi.uni-tuebingen.de/kde/demos/kdescreenshot1.jpg.gz We already do have: kcalc a nifty kde calculator with hex, dec, oct, bin kclocka simple analog kde clock kfm the kde filemanager (also handles URLs and tar) kminesa kde minesweeper clone kpat a kde solitaer clone colia a kde draw program which shall replace xfig/tgif kMix a kde mixer for your soundcard kterm a kde replacement for xterm libkdea configuration class library kpopupa kde extension to Qt progress a kde extension to Qt kwm a kde windows manager acli a little command line interface Soon to come kLyX a kde version of the famous WYSIWYM LaTeX based textprocessor ktetris a kde version of tetris (we've been all waiting for :-)) Yours, -- martin BTW: Who wants to write a dpkg based installer for kde. // Martin Konold, Muenzgasse 7, 72070 Tuebingen, Germany // // Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] // Linux - because reboots are for hardware upgrades -- Edwin Huffstutler [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Just go ahead and write your own multitasking multiuser os ! Worked for me all the times. -- Linus Torvalds -- -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: X11 bashing
On Thu, 14 Nov 1996, Rick Macdonald wrote: Martin Konold wrote: There is a nice screenshot of an already working kde (kool desktop environment) http://fiwi02.wiwi.uni-tuebingen.de/kde/demos/kdescreenshot1.jpg.gz This link doesn't seem to exist. What should it be? Sorry! This URL should work ftp://fiwi02.wiwi.uni-tuebingen.de/pub/kde/demos/kdescreenshot1.jpg.gz I just checked it myself with netscape. Yours, -- martin // Martin Konold, Muenzgasse 7, 72070 Tuebingen, Germany // // Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] // Linux - because reboots are for hardware upgrades -- Edwin Huffstutler [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Just go ahead and write your own multitasking multiuser os ! Worked for me all the times. -- Linus Torvalds -- -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: X11 bashing
I cannot believe that after HOW MANY years of development, X windows is still such a completely inconsistent and painful user interface. This is a true problem which last from the fact that X11 is seperated from the stadart toolkit Motif (which is payware) Well, you have to understand that, when MIT started developing X, the intention was to provide, in their words, Mechanism, not policy. Basically, this means that they wanted to provide a GUI environment without imposing any particular GUI conventions on it. It was completely open. It would be up to other entities (and market forces) to provide particular GUI styles (like Motif or OpenView) that would be popular. Unfortunately, until the advent of Motif and others, programming would be difficult for an X programmer because they can't really tell the system to draw a button, since, without a GUI convention in place, there's no solid definition of what a button *looks like*. I'm sure it's not quite that bad... but it's close. What's worse is, once Motif came out, it cost money... which, understandably, adversely affected it's aspirations of being ubiquitous (Man! I'm talking like Don King, now...). There is no inter-application communication or awareness to speak of. Yeah, you don't normally see this is software that's free. be it for X or Win95 -Joe -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: X11 bashing
I cannot believe that after HOW MANY years of development, X windows is still such a completely inconsistent and painful user interface. This is a true problem which last from the fact that X11 is seperated from the stadart toolkit Motif (which is payware) Well, you have to understand that, when MIT started developing X, the intention was to provide, in their words, Mechanism, not policy. Basically, this means that they wanted to provide a GUI environment without imposing any particular GUI conventions on it. It was completely open. It would be up to other entities (and market forces) to provide particular GUI styles (like Motif or OpenView) that would be popular. Unfortunately, until the advent of Motif and others, programming would be difficult for an X programmer because they can't really tell the system to draw a button, since, without a GUI convention in place, there's no solid definition of what a button *looks like*. I'm sure it's not quite that bad... but it's close. What's worse is, once Motif came out, it cost money... which, understandably, adversely affected it's aspirations of being ubiquitous (Man! I'm talking like Don King, now...). There is no inter-application communication or awareness to speak of. Yeah, you don't normally see this is software that's free. be it for X or Win95 -Joe -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
