Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
KDE GUI Software Linux

KDE 3.2 Release Candidate 1 Debuts 422

Posted by simoniker from the run-kde-and-jam-master-jay dept.
danalien writes "Before a early Feb. release of the (stable) KDE 3.2, KDE has today announced the first 'Release Candidate', and hopefully the last pre-release, for its 'Open Source graphical desktop environment for Unix workstations'. Get it from download.kde.org, or use Konstruct if you don't feel like calling configure by yourself."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

KDE 3.2 Release Candidate 1 Debuts More

KDE 3.2 Release Candidate 1 Debuts

Comments Filter:

  • Hey editors: (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 19, 2004 @05:48PM (#8024997)
    It's 'Release Kandidate'. Learn to spell.

  • KDE most impressive open source project - ever (Score:3, Interesting)

    by tljohnsn ( 32689 ) * on Monday January 19, 2004 @05:49PM (#8025003)
    The progress that these guys have made in 5 years and the sheer volume of quality code is simply amazing. What are these guys doing right as compared to all the other projects? They even stick to their development and release schedules better than most commercial companies. And despite everyone calling for the death of C++, KDE is the shining example of what can be accomplished in that language. I seriously doubt it could have been constructed in any other language and produce as quick and relatively error-free code as these guys have produced.

    • Re:KDE most impressive open source project - ever (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Shaman ( 1148 ) <shaman AT kos DOT net> on Monday January 19, 2004 @05:52PM (#8025047) Homepage
      It helps when you have a good and simple programming environment. QT is so much easier to code in than GTK/GTK+/Glib/Bonobo that it isn't funny. Not to mention KParts.

      • "It helps when you have a good and simple programming environment. QT is so much easier to code in than GTK/GTK+/Glib/Bonobo that it isn't funny. Not to mention KParts."

        I noticed a couple of downmods here. I was just wondering: Why is this post considered flamebait?

        I ask because I don't have any NFI what QT, GTK, or Glib, or Bonobo is. Kinda wish the dude used the post button instead of a mod point.
        • Especially since it's very true. I have nothing against Gnome as a user, but as a developer? Oof.

        • Re:KDE most impressive open source project - ever (Score:4, Informative)

          by lokedhs ( 672255 ) on Monday January 19, 2004 @06:48PM (#8025669)
          QT - Widget toolkit used by KDE. Controversial in some ways since you cannot develop commercial software with it without paying a pretty expensive license.

          GTK+ - GIMP Toolkit. The widget toolkit used by GNOME.

          Glib - GNOME utility library. Contains useful stuff like lists and hash maps.

          Bonobo - Component toolkit to allow embedding of applications in other applications.

          And before anyone flames, I've simplified, I know. But I have no idea of what the programming skills are of the parent poster.

          • Re:KDE most impressive open source project - ever (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 19, 2004 @07:51PM (#8026381)
            Controversial in some ways since you cannot develop commercial software with it without paying a pretty expensive license.

            No - you can't develop proprietary software with it without paying a license that's priced around average for libraries of this sort. Since it's also available under the GPL, there's nothing to stop you selling your QT software as long as it's GPL'd.

            Why is this controversial? Nobody complains that useful libraries like GNU readline are under the GPL - and in the case of readline, you don't even have the option of buying a proprietary license, because the FSF ain't selling one! But somehow that is "good", whereas the same license applied to QT is "bad".

            Posted anonymously because I really am a coward - and while I don't think the above is trolling or flamebait, I don't trust the moderators to realise. Guys, if you want to mod this down, please use "redundant", since this debate has been had to death many a time. Although given the grandparent's igorance of the issue, maybe setting out the arguments yet again isn't actually redundant for everyone.
          • Commercial software does not always have to be closed source. You could develop a GPL application with commercial uses (you could even sell it), and still use the free QT under the GPL. It's a common misconception that commercial software has to be closed source / proprietary.

            For instance, MySQL could bundle a QT-based query analyzer with their product, since MySQL is also GPL. That doesn't stop it from being sold and supported as a commercial product. Now, if they want to sell a version of MySQL that is u
        • Probably because some moderators feel that QT isn't "so much easier to code in than GTK/GTK+/Glib/Bonobo that it isn't funny". While some people may feel that way, others don't. If you're a moderator, and you see someone making a blanket statement, expressing opinion as fact, and you disagree with them, you're likely to mod them down.
      • Could it be because one GUI toolkit arose with ease of use and programming in mind, and the other arose simply to make a political statement?
        • Don't you think it's a bit more complicated than that? There are two completely opposite methodologies. One was to write a new toolkit (Qt, at that time) to do everything, while the other was to reuse everything that was available (gtk from Gimp, ...) and plug different things together. In some way, I'd say KDE/Qt is closer to the Windows idea (integrated stuff), while Gnome/Gtk is closer to the unix philosophy (put lots of small packages together). I'm not saying one is better/worse, but KDE and gnome real
          • Starting from scratch is actually more the Linux-philosophy than the Windows-philosophy which is more like be-backwards-compatible-at-all-costs.
            • In that sense, yes. But what I was mostly refering to is the philosophy of aggregating stuff. Qt is a big, monolithic thing (not saying is bad), while gnome/gtk is composed of tons of small packages. The advantate of the gnome/gtk approach is reusability, but the cost is increased complexity.

              • Re:KDE most impressive open source project - ever (Score:5, Insightful)

                by be-fan ( 61476 ) on Monday January 19, 2004 @06:47PM (#8025651)
                Erm. KDE/Qt isn't any more monolithic than GNOME/GTK+. All the stuff that GNOME has as completely seperate libraries (libxml, etc) are seperate modules of Qt. In Qt4, Qt will become even more modularized. And KDE is completely component-based. KHTML is just a component somewhere that any application can use. Contrast that to GNOME's browser, Epiphany, that doesn't use Bonobo to embed Gecko.

                KDE's development style is probably more monolithic than GNOME's, but the code is highly modular.
                • I wasn't attacking KDE/Qt or saying it's bloated. As you said, in your last paragraph, I'm mostly talking about development and packages. I think the gnome way makes development simpler (faster given equal resources, compared to a "from the ground up, monolithic development) at the expense of simplicity of use (application development). I think gnome's now a bit better by reducing th enumber of packages, but there are AFAIK still more packages required for gnome than KDE.
                  • How does having more packages reduce development time? Why should the packaging-philosophy have any effect on development at all?

                    And if Gnome development faster why is it lagging behind KDE despite of having much more ressources and company-backing (Sun, RedHat)?

                • Re:KDE most impressive open source project - ever (Score:5, Informative)

                  by swillden ( 191260 ) * <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Monday January 19, 2004 @10:49PM (#8028020) Journal

                  KDE/Qt isn't any more monolithic than GNOME/GTK+. All the stuff that GNOME has as completely seperate libraries (libxml, etc) are seperate modules of Qt.

                  I think the "KDE is monolithic" viewpoint arises from the excellent integration between KDE applications and the desktop. Because they all operate as though they're a single, large piece of code, people assume they are. Ironically, it's the modularity of the code base that makes such seamless integration possible for a distributed development team.

          • ..."while the other was to reuse everything that was available (gtk from Gimp, ...) and plug different things together..."

            According to the GNU project, GNOME was started because they were afraid QT would overtake the free desktop in marketshare and they would have yet another non-free desktop that was popular (much like CDE at the time)

            If you look into history of the GNOME project, and this idea, the GNU project even started a free QT compatible widget library to replace QT. But since GNOME got more popul
            • The free QT project (Horizon, or something beginning with H anyway) was killed the moment QT became GPL... well a couple of days later.

              At the time there was so much Pro/Anti Gnome stuff going around neither project would have terminated voluntarily.
          • Actually, GTK+ was written specifically for Gimp. GNOME took GTK+ and added existing libraries, write a few others, and bundled them all together into base for a desktop.

            The problem isn't political, but rather methodology. KDE started with a comprehensive and well designed toolkit, and their later libraries followed its model closely. GNOME started with distinct libraries and toolkits, and wrapped them up in an umbrella project. They're two different but valid ways of organizing the projects. But that said

          • Re:KDE most impressive open source project - ever (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Rich ( 9681 ) on Monday January 19, 2004 @07:35PM (#8026154) Homepage
            This comment is so ass-backwards as to be virtually buried in it's own behind. KDE used an existing toolkit -Qt, while Gnome decided try to make a new one based on the custom widgets used by a single app (Gimp). KDE is build on a component model where everything is a KPart and most apps result from combining them. Very few Gnome apps are Bonobo enabled. Why do people persist in making such fundamental mistakes? I would suggest it is because they haven't actually bothered to do anything as 'complicated' as build the systems and try them.

            If people on slashdot want to be taken seriously they really ought to make use of the freedom they are given and actually use some of the source code we donate.
    • What are these guys doing right as compared to all the other projects?

      They focus on the software, not on licensing and politics.

      • I really like KDE, I think it is further along than GNOME in many ways that are important to me, but their disregard for licensing issues is probably why many big names aren't touching it, and will ultimately not succeed in its goal to become the Linux Desktop.

        Sun: Gnome. UserLinux: Gnome. Redhat: Gnome. If IBM ever did a desktop, it would probably be based on Gnome.

        Sorry, but if Gnome (or a project like Linux) isn't proof that licensing is more important than features in the long run, then I don't kno
        • I like Linux because of the license. I use it because it is better/more stable/doesn't catch the latest virus!

          In terms of the companies using Gnome, just look at your list again. Sun - Now there is a company that can pick winning user interfaces (is CDE ugly or what). UserLinux - In spite of what they say, it is a religious issue with them. RedHat - One of more of the primary Gnome developers works for them, don't you think that has some effect. IBM sells (among others) Suse linux, which has long been
    • I don't know why, but this comment stuck in my mind for a minute. Deja vu, I guess.

      Is this a stock comment that gets attached to a lot of KDE articles or something? 'Cause I've seen it before [slashdot.org].

      It doesn't really matter I guess, because the post makes some good points. Personally, I love KDE.

      J

  • Kool. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 19, 2004 @05:52PM (#8025034)

    KDE is pretty kool. Aktually it's uber kool. I've konstantly kaught myself kakkling at their konstant play with K and K. Err.. K and K. Damn K and K... you know what i mean

    • Re:Kool. (Score:2, Funny)

      by sloanster ( 213766 )
      yeah, that's way kooler than all that gsilly gnome gstuff, glike grip, gand gother gnome gprograms.
      • Personally, I think both naming conventions are horrible. But the KDE convention just sounds a bit worse. I dont know why. Does anyone feel the opposite?

    • Re:Kool. (Score:2, Funny)

      by LMCBoy ( 185365 )
      ?

      Oh, I get it! You put "K"'s in place of "C"'s! Because many KDE apps have names that begin with K! Ha! Ha! Ha! Wooh! I wonder why no one's ever made that joke before? It's just...so...hilarious!

      I smell a "+5, Funny" coming your way, mister oh-so-clever-with-the-joke-that-isn't-even-close-t o-being-old-yet!

    • Obligatory Monty Python sketch quote (Score:5, Funny)

      by Mjlner ( 609829 ) on Monday January 19, 2004 @07:31PM (#8026062) Journal
      Well... At least it should be obligatory...

      ..."Yes, I saw your advert in the bolour supplement."
      "The what?"
      "The bolour supplement!"
      "The colour supplement?"
      "Yes. I'm sorry I can't say the letter B."
      "C?"
      "Yes, that's right. It's all due to a trauma I suffered when I was a spoolboy. I was attacked by a bat."
      "A cat?"
      "No, a bat."
      "Can you say the letter 'K'?"
      "Oh yes. Khaki, king, kettle, Kuwait, Keble Bollege Oxford."
      "Why don't you use the letter 'K' instead of the letter 'C'?"
      "What do you mean ... spell bolour with a 'K'?"
      "Yes."
      "Kolour... Oh, that's very good, I never thought of that."

  • Mirrors (Score:5, Informative)

    by vpscolo ( 737900 ) on Monday January 19, 2004 @05:52PM (#8025044) Homepage
    Remeber the mirrors http://www.kde.org/mirrors/ftp.php [kde.org] Rus

  • The Developers (Score:5, Interesting)

    by GenomeX ( 416265 ) on Monday January 19, 2004 @05:53PM (#8025049)
    I have to also say how impressed I am with the guys developing KDE. We once picked up a bug somewhere, mailed them with the problem,ect. Within a half an hour I think, they posted a patch for that specific problem. Amazing.

    • Re:The Developers (Score:5, Informative)

      by pytheron ( 443963 ) on Monday January 19, 2004 @06:00PM (#8025125) Homepage
      If you have ever worked or contributed in any way to a KDE project / KDE application, then you get some idea of just how dedicated the key people are. My own opinion of this phenomenon is that developers know (feel) that KDE is the best desktop suite we have, and we want it to be better. Also, with tools like QT Designer, and KDevelop, making applications for KDE is actually quite a pleasant experience (and this is from someone who loathes GUI programming). Well done chaps !

    • Re:The Developers (Score:5, Interesting)

      by be-fan ( 61476 ) on Monday January 19, 2004 @06:14PM (#8025271)
      Heh. I remember once that I complained on an OSNews or Slashdot post about disliking the dotNET style's missing corner pixels. C.Lee read it and posted a reply saying he'd added an option to enable square corners! These guys are *seriously* dedicated, and props to all of them :)

    • Re:The Developers (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Malc ( 1751 )
      I also once entered in a compilation issue in to the bug tracking system, with a solution. I received an email from a guy in .nl within a very short period of time telling me that it had already been fixed in the next version (silly me for not checking!). Compared with my experiences with Mozilla's bug tracking system, I found it quite shocking!

      To me, KDE is the best thing that has happened to Linux when it comes to bringing it to the desktop. These guys have done a fabulous job in a relatively short pe

  • Why Open Source for Linux Only? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ewanrg ( 446949 ) <ewan.grantham@gmail.STRAWcom minus berry> on Monday January 19, 2004 @05:55PM (#8025068) Homepage
    Seems to me that one way to spread adoption would be to come up with a version of KDE that could run in place of the Windows UI but still give you the core Windows code. Meaning you can move your users that much closer to an MS free existence without losing much compatibility.

    Of course, I'm a bit known for tilting at windmills [blogspot.com]

    • Re:Why Open Source for Linux Only? (Score:5, Informative)

      by LMCBoy ( 185365 ) on Monday January 19, 2004 @06:08PM (#8025206) Homepage Journal
      KDE does not run only on Linux, it also runs on the BSD's, Solaris, and (just recently and still in development) Mac OS X.

    • Re:Why Open Source for Linux Only? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Spy Hunter ( 317220 ) on Monday January 19, 2004 @06:09PM (#8025220) Journal
      You mean like KDE-Cygwin [sourceforge.net], or QKW [iidea.pl]? I guess in the future if these get mature enough you could replace Windows Explorer with Konqueror/KDesktop/Kicker...

    • People are trying to do just that: http://kde-cygwin.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]

    • Re:Why Open Source for Linux Only? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by The Bungi ( 221687 ) <thebungi@gmail.com> on Monday January 19, 2004 @06:10PM (#8025227) Homepage
      You can do that with today to a certain extent. You can run KDE3 within Cygwin in full-screen mode (Cygwin includes a fully functional X port), but it's... just not right. I mean, it's not nearly the same as running the real thing and although it's kind of cool it eats up way too much memory and is a bit jerky for my tastes.

      Writing a complete shell for Windows is not a particularly easy thing to do and I doubt that somehow porting KDE is viable. There are lots of shell replacements out there (Aston, GeoShell, BackBox and so on). Some are free and some are not. I've tried just about every one and for some reason or another I keep going back to Explorer after a while. It's really the little details, like not being able to open a folder view directly from the shell's Run command because the shell extension (Explorer) happens to not be loaded or the way minimized windows are managed. If you're curious you should try Geoshell [geoshellx.com]. In my opinion it should be what other shells aspire to be, but even as good as it is it's still not quite there. For one thing, the entire configuration is registry-based.

      I'm no Microsoft basher, but I've always thought that opening up the shell would be the best thing they could do. After all, you'd still be running Windows underneath. But it's just too darn difficult to write your own. Explorer extensions (like the Google deskbar) are complicated, never mind a whole shell.

      • BAD LINK (Score:2, Informative)

        by The Bungi ( 221687 )
        I apologize, the link to Geoshell is wrong. Apparently they just moved hosting providers and Geoshellx.com has been taken up by a domain parker complete with popups and crap. The correct domain is http://www.geoshell.com [geoshell.com]. The old site under the 'x' domain is still cached [216.239.53.104] in Google.

        Sorry 'bout that.

    • Hmmmm....

      It's possible to replace the windows 'shell' program, I believe (wasn't there an article on this in the most recent issue of 2600? [see, it's not ALL "how to crack security at $MAJOR_RETAILER"...]). Evidently, there's even a version of the BlackBox window manager for Windows.

      Wonder how hard it would be to set up QT for windows and set up a subset of KDE as the replacement shell...

    • Why Open Source for Linux Only?

      Because QT (which KDE is based on) isn't Free on Windows. Duh.

      Of course, I'm a bit known for tilting at windmills

      (If you didn't read his link, you can skip over this now).

      You can't treat "investment" like it's some magical way to multiply money. You don't take two million dollars, stick it in a cage for 10 years, and suddenly, like rabbits, it's multiplied to a "rolling cashflow" that can reduce taxes. Money always has to come from somewhere, and in your case, the m
    • "Meaning you can move your users that much closer to an MS free existence without losing much compatibility."

      Besides a KDE'esque theme, what would this actually buy you?

  • Mirrors out of date? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by BoldAC ( 735721 ) on Monday January 19, 2004 @05:57PM (#8025100)
    I have been wanting to setup a the mirrors site for a while... however, none of the mirror sites are updated. Now that I'm looking... several of the mirror sites never even posted the KDE 3.1.5 Release.

    Why doesn't this mirror correctly? [kde.org]

  • Features (Score:5, Informative)

    by Spy Hunter ( 317220 ) on Monday January 19, 2004 @05:58PM (#8025106) Journal
    KDE 3.2 Feature Plan [kde.org]

  • run-kde-and-jam-master-jay (Score:5, Funny)

    by Limburgher ( 523006 ) on Monday January 19, 2004 @06:01PM (#8025136) Homepage Journal
    That's nice. And appropriate, since KDE is Tougher Than Leather. :)

  • New features? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by 77Punker ( 673758 )
    Anybody know just what is new in this version? Is it as big an upgrade from 3.1.5 to 3.2 as it was from 3 to 3.1?

  • In other news... (Score:5, Funny)

    by stealth.c ( 724419 ) on Monday January 19, 2004 @06:07PM (#8025192)
    Bruce Perens finally confessed that his reasons for embracing GNOME rather than KDE were "...a severe lack of Gs, and far too many Ks. All technical aspects aside, I knew RMS would roast me if I chose something that didn't start with a G."

    Honestly, I think KDE is a technical masterpiece. It gives me a GUI which can easily be configured in pretty much every conceivable way.

    GNOME, MacOS, and Windows just don't have that kind of room for personality.

  • KDE 3.2 CVS (Score:3, Informative)

    by Massacrifice ( 249974 ) on Monday January 19, 2004 @06:07PM (#8025193)
    I've been running KDE 3.2 built from CVS on 2004-01-14 for a week and so far, so good. This release should be nice. Now waiting for an ebuild...

    It's a bit faster. I wish it would be much faster. But generally when this happens I reboot in XP for a day, then I realize that speed isn't all that counts. Prelinking helps, too.

    I think I'll delete KDE 3.1.x entirely, since there is no need for it anymore.

  • stable as... (Score:5, Informative)

    by d_i_r_t_y ( 156112 ) on Monday January 19, 2004 @06:10PM (#8025228) Homepage Journal
    i've been using KDE3.2 built from source since the early alphas. even then it was rock-solid stable with just a few rough edges. once i knew all of the workarounds, i migrated my production/work environment up to 3.2 as well, for the cool/useful features. highly recommended upgrade.

  • Next step - better apps (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Ars-Fartsica ( 166957 ) on Monday January 19, 2004 @06:12PM (#8025249)
    KDE has solved the environment issue but is facing an application issue. People will compare Konq to Mozilla (which has in a way become a de facto GNOME browser), but I will call Mozilla a leader here. The Gimp DESTROYS any KDE equivalent. AbiWord and OpenOffice (soon to be Gnome-ified) blow away KOffice and Gaim also triumphs over its KDE competitors. KDevelop is the only app space I know where KDE is the clear winner.
    • 1. Konqueror is better than Mozilla, IMHO. I only rarely start Mozilla; my browser of choice for all other occasions in Konqueror, which is fast, split-screen, lightweight, better integrated, has better bookmark management, better configurability...

      2. OpenOffice is also soon to be KDE-ified so that's a moot point.

      3. GIMP is no better integrated with GNOME than it is with KDE. I use it in KDE all the time.

      4. KDevelop being clearly better means that in time, KDE apps will be clearly better.

    • Re:Next step - better apps (Score:5, Informative)

      by Spy Hunter ( 317220 ) on Monday January 19, 2004 @06:31PM (#8025455) Journal
      What about K3B, Quanta+, eric3, and scribus? There are tons more great KDE apps at the new KDE-Apps.org [kde-apps.org]. The future of KDE application development looks bright. Remember that you're comparing KDE apps against the complete set of all other open-source applications. I think KDE is doing pretty well, myself.
    • KDE has solved the environment issue but is facing an application issue. People will compare Konq to Mozilla (which has in a way become a de facto GNOME browser), but I will call Mozilla a leader here.

      Half a year ago, I would have agreed, but now with Mozilla removing [mozilla.org] features while Konqueror is adding SVG (in the default build, not in some seperate project), Konq is overtaking Mozilla about now.

      I'd still say Mozilla has the better rendering engine, but Konqueror has better integration (an example is t

    • IMHO, what KDE needs is a better build system. The current one kinda sucks. It's so goddamn hard to compile and install a KDE app from source with all the directory requirements (all KDE apps have to be in the same --prefix if you want any advanced functionality like plugins) that makes it about impossible to build something and stow(8) it to /usr/local. No Gnome or GTK application I tried so far was so picky about it.

      When something like this was possible, maybe all that stuff could be unbundled so that on

    • - Konq core (KHTML) was chosen by Apple to be Safari core (and they contributed lot of code back!) instead of Gecko from Mozilla (but I prefer Mozilla since I use Windows & Linux)
      - OO - it work's "good enough" and since it's also multiplatform it'll stay here. But from what I've heard, the OO code is as ugly as hell! Since KOffice will natively support OO file format it won't be such a big matter.
      - Main big advantage of K* is CONSISTENT look of everything
    • Actually I think KOffice is pretty neat. I especially like the way it doesn't support any proprietary formats eg. MS Office.

    • Re:Next step - better apps (Score:5, Interesting)

      by be-fan ( 61476 ) on Monday January 19, 2004 @06:58PM (#8025763)
      Well, it really depends.

      I like Konq better than Epiphany (Mozilla is not GNOME app, the GNOME project's PR aside) though Epiphany does have better rendering courtesy of Gecko. However, the gap is quickly narrowing, thanks partially to Safari's rendering fixes.

      AbiWord and Gnumeric are great apps, but KOffice (the 1.3RC) is pretty competitive. And OpenOffice is to be KDE-ified in 2.x as well. That's the whole point of the NWF --- toolkit independent OpenOffice.

      I'd say that Kopete is better than Gaim. Its got much better integration with KDE than Gaim has with GNOME. The only feature that's really missing is reliable AIM file-transfer.

      The GIMP is not a GNOME app (as its developers repeatedly keep saying) so its irrelevent. Its UI is completely alien to both GNOME and KDE, so GIMP with the GTK-Qt theme is about as good as GIMP inside GNOME.

      And don't forget about Quanta, the best graphical HTML editor on Linux, as well as Kate, which is a much better programmer's editor than GEdit.

      In 3.2, Kontact should also give Evolution a run for its money. KMail in 3.2 has been getting a lot of very positive reviews.

    • Adopt every other opensource app while your at it (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bogie ( 31020 ) on Monday January 19, 2004 @07:22PM (#8025984) Journal
      Funny how your picking apps that were never meant to be "Gnome" apps in the first place. These were all independant apps that were NOT built from the ground up to be Gnomified. Mozilla is the de facto "GNOME" browser? Since when? I could just as easily say "use that new neat QT wrapper thingy that makes gtk apps behave like QT apps". Who has all of the "good apps" then?

      Gnome has a habit of just picking the best apps and then "adopting" them so I don't think its fair to start saying these apps are blowing away KDE counterparts. Since when can't you run Gimp, Mozilla, OpenOffice.org in KDE? You can, thus your point is moot. Try and get over the whole Gnome or KDE has better apps thingy. Be happy that you can run any of these apps easily from any Window Manager.

    • Re:Next step - better apps (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Brandybuck ( 704397 ) on Monday January 19, 2004 @07:41PM (#8026239) Homepage Journal
      That's the next step for GNOME as well! Of the apps you mention, only Gaim is a truly native GNOME application. AbiWord and Gimp are next closest, since though they can built for GNOME, they can also be built standalone (which is typical for Gimp).

      Mozilla certainly isn't GNOME by a long shot, though there are GNOME browers that use the Mozilla core. And OpenOffice? Why do the GNOME guys keep saying it's a GNOME app? It clearly is not! Just because it's soon to be gnomified is meaningless, because it's soon to be qt-ified as well.

  • Adding to the praise (Score:3, Funny)

    by Punk Walrus ( 582794 ) on Monday January 19, 2004 @06:19PM (#8025342) Journal
    I have been using the Beta 2 (3.1.94) on some of my "non-essential" Slackware test systems for a while, and I am very satisfied. I won't upgrade all my primary systems until 3.2.x (the usual "Oops, sorry, our bad!" release), but I'll be itching con Konvert all the Fedora Gore 1 systems to Fedora Kore.
  • As much as I welcome this news, I look much more forward to SCO rc 1 codenamed "McBride"...in about 10-15 yrs pending good behavior (stable?)

  • Konqueror changes from Apple? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Tengoo ( 446300 ) on Monday January 19, 2004 @06:30PM (#8025448)
    Does anyone know how many of Apple's changes [kde.org] have made it into Konqueror?
    It would be interesting to know how useful the Safari team's contributions have been.
  • Anyone still packaging RPMs for Mandrake now that texstar's gone? While I'm asking, what other distros that aren't linked to by KDE have someone packaging KDE RPMs for them?

  • To Rule, KDE Only Needs.... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    KDE is by far the best engineered Linux GUI, however as Bill Gates proved the best is often not good enough for widespread adoption.

    With Windows all you needed was to make it cheaper than the Macintosh and stifle all possible competition. In the open source community, you need to have the best software platform (KDE already does) and it needs to be acceptable to the community.

    As I mentioned, KDE is by far the cleanest, most well-designed API/Software environment for Linux; however you need to please two

Slashdot Top Deals

I have hardly ever known a mathematician who was capable of reasoning. -- Plato

Close