On Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 11:45:56PM +0300, Ira Abramov wrote:
> Gnome are also a long way from a friendly GUI (I'm using the latest from
> Helix), but it's not as restrictive. can't explain it in words, but
> Gnome is more intuitive and flowing for me.
Yalla yalla.
Go tvtwm!
--
believing is se
Hi, Nimrod!
On Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 04:08:25PM +0300, you wrote the following:
> Recently I switched to FreeBSD and decided to give GNOME a try. Built
> all gtk/gnome components from sources (using the excellent BSD ports
> system) - latest stable versions.
>
> Took me two days to realize GNOME
IANAL, and I would love to get into the guts of the licensing
problem. The fact that KDE/Qt is not GPLed does not bother me per se
(since I don't develop KDE-related stuff), but if they violate GPL
that's a big problem that might lead me to dropping KDE indeed.
However, the slashback article con
On Sun, 18 Jun 2000, Ariel Biener wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2000, Ira Abramov wrote:
>
>
> Unless you do nfs ??
I'm searching the mailing list archive for that. apperently they are
going to make a distributed reiserfs. design starts in august.
--
Ira Abramov (@- Gnu/Linux, Free Speech, RFC
On Sun, 18 Jun 2000, Ira Abramov wrote:
Unless you do nfs ??
--Ariel
>
> now on ftp.iglu.org.il. enjoy.
>
> also in the last 24 hours: emacs 20.7 or windows, two new ac patches to
> kernel 2.4.0-test1 (now at ac20, Linus is taking a looong vacation) and
> more...
>
> kernel 2.4.0 seems nice
now on ftp.iglu.org.il. enjoy.
also in the last 24 hours: emacs 20.7 or windows, two new ac patches to
kernel 2.4.0-test1 (now at ac20, Linus is taking a looong vacation) and
more...
kernel 2.4.0 seems nice a stable. I am running my main server at home on
it, and converted all the FS on it to R
On Sat, 17 Jun 2000, Matan Ziv-Av wrote:
>
> Ira wrote:
>
> > > QT is NOT free software, and as such it does not settle with GPL of KDE
> > > as it is distributed today.
>
> According to RMS it is free (check www.gnu.org). The requirements are
> that users are allowed to distribute the code, m
Oops,
I mean that QT 2.0 is open-source, but its not free. You can use it for
open source project, but once u start selling, u need to pay to
Trolltech.
Sorry,
Hetz
Matan Ziv-Av wrote:
>
> Ira wrote:
>
> > > QT is NOT free software, and as such it does not settle with GPL of KDE
> > > as it i
On Sat, 17 Jun 2000, Hetz Ben Hamo wrote:
> > (scroll to fourth item)
> > http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/06/13/1642213
>
> You're more then welcome to take a look at the kde-devel archive at:
> http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-devel&r=1&w=2 to see their response. I
> remembered that I posted a
Ira wrote:
> > QT is NOT free software, and as such it does not settle with GPL of KDE
> > as it is distributed today.
According to RMS it is free (check www.gnu.org). The requirements are
that users are allowed to distribute the code, modify the code, and
distribute their modifications. All th
Ok, I'll bite this one...
Ira, regarding your first post:
> (scroll to fourth item)
> http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/06/13/1642213
You're more then welcome to take a look at the kde-devel archive at:
http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-devel&r=1&w=2 to see their response. I
remembered that I pos
On Sat, 17 Jun 2000, Matan Ziv-Av wrote:
> > and to the more politicly aware
> > linux users I explain my other ideological problems with their
> > cathedral practices and license problems.
>
> I guess you also don't use bind (cathedral), sendmail (cathedral), qmail
> (cathedral). Also, read lkm
> and to the more politicly aware
> linux users I explain my other ideological problems with their
> cathedral practices and license problems.
I guess you also don't use bind (cathedral), sendmail (cathedral), qmail
(cathedral). Also, read lkml and see how many patches not accepted into
the kern
NM>> Took me two days to realize GNOME is not nearly as stable as KDE1 is.
NM>> While mostly, it works, various components (e.g., the help application)
NM>> crash repeatedly and sometimes restarting X seems like the only
NM>> option...
Seems you have bugs in your X installation. Never saw GNOME l
On Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 01:40:56PM +0300, Ira Abramov wrote:
> feel free to comment, but don't make this into a religious war between
> KDE and other competitors, this is about license violations and
> ideologies.
Not to argue on which's better today, KDE was the
best thing that happened to Linux
This is a short range vs. long range conflict.
In the short range, KDE is more stable, has more nice software, etc.
But in the long range, what will happen to KDE and software based upon it?
THE reason for Stallman's GPL is to vest with users of software the power
to modify it and tailor it to th
Ira Abramov wrote:
>
> I have reached a decision to do away with KDE on systems I'll install
> from now on. I may install applications based on QT if I must, but only
> from source I suppose. I wish useful products like Konqueror are ported
> to GTk somehow one day.
>
> feel free to comment, but
I have been asked several times in the past why I have an aversion from
the KDE project. I often answer that I have to many things I dislike
about the interface and organization, and to the more politicly aware
linux users I explain my other ideological problems with their cathedral
practices and
18 matches
Mail list logo
