GNOME/KDE Integration Gets A Few Boosts 339
Balinares writes "Great bunch of news on the Linux desktop unification front. After the unification of GTK and Qt themes that Slashdot already reported on, it is OpenOffice's turn to get the unified look treatment (screenshot 1, screenshot 2, screenshot 3).
In related news, the recently released QtGTK library allows to merge the Qt event loop with that of GTK. In other words, this means you can now easily use KDE's DCOP, IOslaves, and, last but not least, file dialogs, from inside your GTK apps. (Screenshot of this feature used in XMMS2: 1 2). It comes with a tutorial that explains the basics.
Finally, the new fuse_kio tool now makes it possible to use KDE's IOslaves directly at the filesystem level, from any Linux app. 2004 is really beginning well for all those of us who use Linux as their primary desktop!"
Sweet First Post! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sweet First Post! (Score:5, Insightful)
"But the truth is, people don't want to choose, they want you to choose for them."
Well, just because there IS choice doesn't mean you HAVE to choose. If those people don't want to choose then why don't they just let their distributor/geek friend/vendor/whatever choose for them?
And you forgot why there is choice in the first place: one size does not fit all! The only way to satisfy as many people as possible is to provide choice. The people who don't like that their distributor/vendor/whatever chose for them will choose, and the people who don't want to choose will let their distributor/vendor/whatever chooce for them. What's wrong with that?
Re:Sweet First Post! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sweet First Post! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Sweet First Post! (Score:2, Insightful)
It makes perfect sense. And decades of research by Apple and Microsoft labs proves it.
"But the truth is, people don't want to choose, they want you to choose for them."
Well, just because there IS choice doesn't mean you HAVE to choose. If those people don't want to choose then why don't they just let their distributor/geek friend/vendor/whatever choose for them?
I thought that's what he was arguing.
And you forgot why there is choice in the first place: one size does n
Re:Sweet First Post! (Score:2)
I'm sure the number of compatible software titles has nothing to do with it. Its all because the average user doesn't know what to do when they find "GNOME, KDE, WindowMaker, FluxBox" in a pulldown menu.
Re:Sweet First Post! (Score:3, Funny)
by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Saturday January 10, @02:31PM (#7938902)
There's a reason we've been hearing since 1998 that Linux
will "overtake Windows on the desktop," but it's never
happened and never will with its current mindset.
I'm sure the number of compatible software titles has
nothing to do with it. Its all because the average user
doesn't know what to do when they find "GNOME, KDE,
WindowMaker, FluxBox" in a pulldown menu.
Damn straight, the first poster was correct
Re:Sweet First Post! (Score:2)
Oh sure it's always easy to put all the blame on the attitude and oversimplifying the situation. The o-so-friendly-and-fast BeOS didn't succeed either. And the o-so-friendly MacOS X still doesn't have more than a few percent market share. Heck, *no* non-MS operating system has succeeded into getting more than a few percent market sh
Re:Sweet First Post! (Score:2)
Contrary to what you believe, providing a bunch of choices doesn't please everybody, it just confuses and spreads energy across various, conflicting projects.
This is true if all you're trying to reach is consistency with limited development resources. When something needs to be done in the free software world it gets done. Sometimes at a staggering pace. (I have a long opinion on this if you're interested) Because of this I don't think resources is the problem. I agree consistency can and does help for wi
Re:Sweet First Post! (Score:4, Insightful)
So much for capitalism and competition, then.
Why don't we get rid of political parties, too ? Surely it just confuses and spreads energy across various different parties ?
Why don't we just have one single government that tells us what to do ? Because choice is a bad thing, right ?
Re:Sweet First Post! (Score:2)
Re:Sweet First Post! (Score:2)
I use WindowMaker. It starts in under a second, compared with 15 seconds for KDE.
You probably don't want WindowMaker. You'd prefer something with a Start menu and lots of stuff on it. KDE is good.
Howabout we don't care which is the default desktop? You only need to choose it once, and after that, it's, well... a default. It's not like the multi-gigabyte disks that family computers come with are having problems installing both systems at once.
And
Re:Sweet First Post! (Score:3, Interesting)
Tell you what. Sit one of your relatives in from of a properly configured Linux desktop (either KDE or Gnome will do). Let them click around for awhile and answer any questions they have. People get the hang of Linux on the desktop pretty quickly. The reason your grandma probably doesn't want to deal with Linux on the desktop is because you're making it seem more difficult for her than it really is.
It's
Re:Sweet First Post! (Score:2)
Then why are they choosing Linux ?
Or MacOS X ?
Re:Sweet First Post! (Score:2)
In other words, because you don't want to make choices, the rest of should be offered choices either. You speak only for yourself, please stop pretending that you know what "people" want. Many of us do want to be able to explore alternative ways of doing things and are very appreciative of those who provide the alternatives.
Re:Sweet First Post! (Score:3, Insightful)
While I don't agree that it's too hard for the average user, I have to say, so what if it is? Is it so terrible to have an operating system that's not dumbed down to the lowest common denominator?
Re:Sweet First Post! (Score:4, Insightful)
I partially agree. For desktops, some people do want to have many options to choose from and other people want to have the choice made for them. But even when that choice is made for them, almost everybody wants some level of control over certain aspects of the desktop (eg, the backgrounds, the colours).
I agree with you that there are many desktops in Linux, but only KDE and GNOME seem to have any significant mindshare. I see it as very similar to the early days of GUIs on MS-DOS. We had options that included GEM, GeOS, Desqview and Windows (of course). It was a mess. Eventually the market made a decision and Windows now dominates.
But even when Windows became hugely successful (with version 3.0) there were multiple competing widget sets. I don't know what your experience is like, but I still recall the big battle between Borland and Microsoft. Some applications used the (IMO ugly) Borland widget set with the Big Green Tick for the OK button and the nasty 3D border effects. Other applications used the Microsoft widgets. Over time, Borland lost marketshare, and Microsoft improved at a faster rate than Borland, and now we have "consistency" on Windows. Though I think if you look hard enough you can still find some applications aren't consistent (eg, recently I installed an ASUS motherboard and the AsusProbe software looks nothing like the rest of Windows).
I see something similar eventually happening in the KDE/GNOME war. Right now we have two strong desktops and that causes confusion to some users (admittedly the users who can least deal with the confusion). I expect over the next five years we'll see more "integration stories" like this. Eventually the superficial differences will disappear - the user experience will at last be consistent - and all that will be left will be the programming models. That's no different to any of the existing platforms; they all offer multiple programming models that have superficially similar appearance. We're already seeing improved levels of integration in drag and drop, Desktop folders, metadata formats, etc. This story now says we're soon going to see improvements in integration in widgets, themes, event loops, etc. It's all slowly getting better.
Ok, I've rambled. My point is that Linux on the desktop is immature. What we're seeing now has been replayed on every other platform as it "grew up". Eventually the inconsistency is all settled from the users point of view, though I don't think it's ever consistent from the programmer's point of view. These "integration stories" are (IMO) normal and expected. It might be confusing now but it is going to get better if history repeats (and I think it will).
License? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:License? (Score:5, Informative)
That depends on what license you pick for Qt. Qt is available under a number of different licenses [trolltech.com]. For Free Software, you need to follow either the GPL or the QPL.
Re:License? (Score:2)
Re:License? (Score:2)
Just buy the commercial license from troll tech. That way you know you are safe. No different then buying any other toolkit from any other vendor.
Re:License? (Score:2)
Re:License? (Score:2)
Re:License? (Score:5, Informative)
Why do you insist on trolling every single KDE topic with this complaint though? Trolltech has every right to restrict you to the GPL (or compatible licenses) if you choose to use their software. If you don't like it, don't use it--no one is forcing you to. Or, if you absolutely have to use QT, and you absolutely cannot use the GPL, buy a commercial license.
So, in conclusion, no your application needn't be GPL, but when you distribute your application with the GPL software, you have to abide by the terms of the license.
Re:License? (Score:2, Insightful)
He wasn't trolling, he was asking a simple question. I wondered the same thing, and I'm sure many others did too. No one has implied here that the QT licensing scheme is in any way bad. Stop overreacting.
Re:License? (Score:2)
Just because Qt forms a small piece of the used code doesn't change the licensing requirements.
Re:License? (Score:2, Interesting)
Since the GTK license allows keeping the source closed and the QT doesn't I desired to know if this could be used in closed source apps. How is that a troll?
Re:License? (Score:3, Informative)
I would guess that it is considered a troll because Qt does allow you to keep your source closed. All you have to do is purchase [trolltech.com] a Qt license from Trolltech. Considering the quality of the toolset, and its reasonable price, most people don't think this is a problem.
Re:License? (Score:4, Insightful)
Okay, step by step:
1. You can't normally link proprietary software to QT without paying licensing fees, agreed? No criticism here, no condemnation, just those are the rules, agreed?
2. GTK normally does allow you to link with proprietary software without requiring licensing fees, agreed?
3. The system this article is about apparently allows you to use some QT functionality with your GTK apps.
So the question if I understood it correctly was, can you legally use this system in conjunction with a proprietary GTK-using app? If I understand correctly this would be the user making this choice not the developer, but maybe I've misunderstood how this system works.
That question seems to me to be a valid and reasonable one. I don't think you have answered or even addressed it, but either way it does not appear to be a troll.
Re:License? (Score:2)
Re:License? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, you are pretty clearly violating the wishes of the respective owners of the software involved if you do that - guys, please, let's encourage people to act with honour ok?
The legalities of it are somewhat more involved I guess. I'd definately not advise anybody to do that, as it probably just sh
Re:TrollTech is setting us up just like SCO (Score:2)
I didn't make any mention of the usefulness of their toolkit. I've used it only sparingly, and am not qualified to pass judgement on it--but if it's so terrible, why do you insist that you be able to proprietarily develop against it? If QT
Re:TrollTech is setting us up just like SCO (Score:3, Interesting)
That means, if I so choose, I could sever the GPL parts from the BSD parts and close your software, but not the GPL parts, because I wasn't given permission to.
Re:License? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:License? (Score:2, Insightful)
Since the license for gtk+ is LGPL there should be no problems linking a closed source app against gtk+ and QT (under whatever license Trolltech wants to sell you), provided that you can license the integration library under compatible terms (LGPL or license from author). If you can't, you can go and do your own integration library, I don't think anybody will stop you.
DAldredge: I'm not assuming one way or the other about your personal views, but these kinds of questions often carries a kind of unspoken
Re:License? (Score:2)
And about lies, there are more about KDE even requiring an own site [urbanlizard.com] to disprove them.
Theme THIS! (Score:4, Insightful)
This is not wanted, because XMMS has always been the bastion of UI consistency. Also, while I am telling the truth, Mozilla makes any desktop look professional with its native menus and widgets. While I am still telling the truth, I am not always looking for functional replacements for Mozilla and XMMS that don't scream UGLY and awkward every time you see them.
~Darl
Re:Theme THIS! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Theme THIS! (Score:4, Interesting)
The other day, I was copying stuff out of a
There's loads of other kioslaves, like smb:, fish:, lan:, kamera:, floppy: and sftp: - they can make tasks which previously required entirely separate applications utterly seamless instead.
I'd love the opportunity to be able to use them on the command line, and to use them with other, non-KDE software, which it sounds like fuse_kio thing will offer...
Re:Theme THIS! (Score:2)
Re:Theme THIS! (Score:2)
Of course stuff like that has nothing to do with Safari which uses a different UI.
Re:Theme THIS! (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:Theme THIS! (Score:2)
And Galeon... Best. Browser. Ever. Period.
I highly recommend both of them.
There is also Firebird, BTW, which uses native widgets for some things, and while not perfectly integrated, it doesn't stick out like a sore thumb.
Cheers!
I know you are joking but... (Score:2)
Still, I wish there would be drop-in fileselector replacements available for Gnome/KDE: both of their fileselectors could be so much more useful, heck, even my old Atari ST had replaceable ones (and some of them were awesome, they were basically mini-filemanagers).
If the gimp had a nice fileselector (with one-button-shortcuts to my pic directories, for example) how much nicer it woul
KNOME (Score:5, Funny)
Re:KNOME (Score:2)
GDE: Gnome Desktop Environment
Re:KNOME (Score:3, Funny)
A print dialog box... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:A print dialog box... (Score:5, Interesting)
This is great (Score:5, Insightful)
This should satisfy the people who just want a consistent look on the desktop and then people who want choice.
unification (Score:5, Insightful)
Proprietary companies may try to run other company's formats, but probably wouldn't be willing to say "oh here's how we do it, let's make it easier for people and merge the two for greater compatibility." Open Source companies can't (and I'd like to think wouldn't if they could) restrict compatibility for their own benefit.
For example: Microsoft comes out with special new features like "plug n' play" or some new way to install programs "faster" and "more easily," but RedHat releases an open source program, RPM, and allows anyone who will to use it.
Hooray for Open Source!
more productive? (Score:2)
The faster these two can work together the better off the community will be. Each one will have more software to choose from, and choice is good
Re:unification (Score:2)
You may like to think that they wouldn't, but human nature is a universal. What's different is the sturcture of the system that it's working under. If the system is structured to enco
Re:unification (Score:2)
Yes but miltiple proprietary companies make the same product and waste manhours trying to compete with each other. It's the same thing. It's not like we live in a world with just one car company or just one company that makes software.
"so that we get the mess of conflicting window libraries, extensions, and code forks that we have now."
Well I still have a few windows 98 boxes
Even more importantly (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Even more importantly (Score:2)
br
Szo
Very Impressive! (Score:4, Interesting)
Nitpick (Score:5, Informative)
The integration I'd like to see (Score:3, Interesting)
For you KDE users who aren't on Konqueror 24/7: don't forget to say thank-you [mozdev.org].
Re:The integration I'd like to see (Score:2)
Now you owe me a cookie. =)
IOSlaves? (Score:4, Funny)
So does this mean... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:So does this mean... (Score:2)
Yeah yeah, I know the standard argument ..."but Qt is so great it justifies the license fees and we all get paid so much anyway it doesn't really matter", but the fact is that it does discourage people - only a few days ago I was reading somebody on the GTKmm mail
When will they integrate the windows event loop? (Score:4, Funny)
The fuse_kio stuff... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The fuse_kio stuff... (Score:2)
You just mount it and use it.
Re:The fuse_kio stuff... (Score:4, Informative)
The ability for every application to handle every possible protocol using URLs is so nice that it outweighs any disadvantage. Using the fish protocol, you can use KWord or KEdit or any KDE app to edit any file stored on any server where you have a simple ssh account. You don't have to worry about whether the server has ftp access, or down/uploading the file, or mounting any remote directories, or junk like that. You just type the URL into the save dialog, and it works. Every KDE program gets support for this protocol along with FTP, HTTP, SMB, and webdav support, plus expandability for future protocols, for free. It's a big part of what makes KDE so great.
Also worth noting (Score:4, Informative)
Anyone else notice the "direction" of integration? (Score:5, Insightful)
GTK apps using the QT event loop and DCOP, etc.
All Linux apps able to use KIO Slaves
How come no KDE apps want to use the GLib event loop or the GTK file dialogs or Gnome VFS I wonder? (*wink wink*)
Re:Anyone else notice the "direction" of integrati (Score:5, Insightful)
This work is NOT being done by people who simply want more integration, but by people who want a more consistent KDE desktop. If the GNOME people want to integrate KDE apps so that they'll feel more like GNOME apps, they're free to do so.
Another KDE myth (Score:4, Interesting)
as part of a recent initiative to do something about KDE's reputation for only doing their own stuff, seemingly "starting over" (their own office suite, their own browser etc)
KOffice and Konqueror were started long before OpenOffice and Mozilla became open source.
Re:Anyone else notice the "direction" of integrati (Score:2)
So if nobody cared enough to integrate the KDE dialogs into GTK, doesn't that indicate that the people using GTK/Gnome apps are happy with the way things are (ie... they have a consistant desktop already perhaps?) more than anything else?
Re:Anyone else notice the "direction" of integrati (Score:2)
Re:Anyone else notice the "direction" of integrati (Score:5, Insightful)
So, why are more apps written using GTK/Gnome? I don't know. FWIW I feel the KDE framework is better too, but ultimately they are both pretty good. In particular GTK stands on its own more than Qt does on the Linux desktop - for apps that wish to remain desktop neutral it seems a more natural choice (and to be honest GTK vs Qt is a pretty even match, you can argue about the corner cases all day but I'd say they're just as good as each other).
Whenever I read the KDE API docs I can't help thinking what a shame it is - if the original developers had cared more about licensing we'd probably only have one desktop, and everybody would use these great frameworks. There'd be no problems with desktop neutrality, no need to slowly reinvent everything in order to make it desktop neutral and so on.
A lesson learned hard, and one I hope future developers will respect..... those who don't take community concerns over platforms seriously can seriously damage things.
Re:Anyone else notice the "direction" of integrati (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Anyone else notice the "direction" of integrati (Score:3, Interesting)
More realistic comparison would be Kontact - Evolution.
I guess you mean Kword - Abiword?
I prefer Konqueror. How well does Epiphany handle filemanagament? Now very well eh? That's what I thought...
I think Kcontrol is superior. It lets me tweak the desktop EXACTLY the way I want to.
Maye GNOME is mo
Re:Anyone else notice the "direction" of integrati (Score:2)
Wow. (Score:4, Funny)
Fail > Now
Fail > When file not saved
etc.
the voice of linux (Score:4, Insightful)
> us who use Linux as their primary desktop!"
Yes. Because GNOME and KDE only run on Linux, don't they?
Please, a little credit to the folk who right proper, portable code, and to those who port it.
Legal question (Score:4, Interesting)
If not, then isn't it a matter of a LD_PRELOAD to transfer all or many GTK calls into QT calls, where the preloaded library is fully GPL, and gtk+ software was originally linked to the LGPL original gtk?
Re:These are a sign of Gnome success (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see it that way. I use about 95% KDE applications on my desktop, and about 5% GTK/GNOME applications. The GTK/GNOME applications always bug me because of things like the file selector (which, for example, can't load files using the KDE IOSlaves).
Given that I find this kind of thing useful, and that I use 95% KDE applications, I can't agree that it's a sign of GNOME's success. It's just dragging the GTK/GNOME applications along where the original developers have failed to take them.
That argument's been done to death. The basic points:
Re:These are a sign of Gnome success (Score:2, Troll)
Not true. It was sometimes, but that were the times when Gnome1 was dying(and it couldn't compete with KDE) and Gnome2 was still in the design (and bugs) more than in work. It was the time when Lycoris, Knoppix, (other distros of small vendors that started at the same time)... But look at the real vendors who are commiting to Linux now. Sun-Gnome, IBM-Gnome(at least based on assumption that Suse and RH are it's distros), RH-Gnome
Re:These are a sign of Gnome success (Score:3, Interesting)
There seems to be ALOT more commercial Qt-apps than there are commercial GTK+-apps. I honestly can't remember even one commercial GTK+-app, but I can remember lots of commercial Qt-apps.
What makes email-client "serious"? What makes Evolution "serious", whereas Kmail is not? And of course, there is Kontact.
Re:These are a sign of Gnome success (Score:5, Insightful)
It still is. We're talkling about people writing applications. Trolltech has a large list of customers, which includes many major companies. [trolltech.com] More importantly, not a single company has come forth and said they used GNOME for licensing reasons. Sun's choice of GNOME had much more to do with the fact that:
a) Since GNOME 2.x was a total rewrite, they got to play a huge role in shaping it. Much of the HIG and the usability and accessibility work on GNOME was thanks to Sun.
b) KDE wouldn't compile with Forte C++ (Sun's C++ compiler), which meant that no KDE apps would be developed with Forte C++, and Sun's engineers were much more comfortable with C.
c) Sun's engineers were much more comfortable with existing standard technologies like CORBA, as opposed to KDE's new ones like DCOP. CORBA turned out to be more or less a failure on GNOME, but Sun didn't know that at the time.
"Sun-Gnome, IBM-Gnome(at least based on assumption that Suse and RH are it's distros), RH-Gnome, Novell-Gnome, Suse the major KDE player - Gnome"
Whoa. Neither SuSE nor Novell have comitted to GNOME. And neither has IBM. Its just Sun and RedHat. IBM is a mix of GNOME and KDE (because of RH and SuSE). And to this day, most of the major Linux desktop rollouts that have actually happend (the China rollout hasn't, yet) have been KDE.
"KDE is loosing ground in this field. Not gaining."
This is probably true. But its *very* early in the game, and it is these sorts of initiatives that could stem the tide.
"Phoenix and Thunderbird - GTK"
Neither are GTK+ apps. They use GDK to handle drawing and do fonts. They don't use any GTK+ dialogs, widgets, or any GNOME technologies.
"OpenOffice.org - Now native GTK planned for next release"
No, a GUI-independent framework is planned for next release.
"KDE release, well project is open but no one want's to do it"
I have yet to see any indication that "no one want's to do it." Hell, KDE's already ahead on this front. There is already a release that adopts OpenOffice to the native KDE theme. That's one step, anyway, ahead of OpenOffice's GTK+ support.
"Evolution - I can't remember any serious KDE mail client sorry (please no kmail)"
Kontact? KMail is a very seriousl mail client, and you provide no evidence to the contrary.
"Gimp - not Gnome but GTK it is"
This is probably the standard one. However, 2.0 has the GUI and core seperated, and a Kimp would not be out of the question.
"xmms - GTK"
XMMS is a GTK-1 app! It looks and feels nothing like a GNOME app! And KDE has many excellent media players, notably JuK and AmaroK.
"Time to smell the future, distro maybe but commercial apps are poping up"
And so far, very few of them have been based on either GTK+ *or* Qt. Most are Motif ports. And of the commercial apps that do use a modern toolkit, most of them have chosen Qt.
"btw. all this **look** hacks KDE producess, GTK look, OpenOffice look, KDE dialogs in GTK are just dust in your eyes."
Well, apparently dust works. Because GNOME has managed to convience a whole bunch of people that Mozilla and OpenOffice are GNOME apps! KDE should have done these hacks a long time ago. And note, Windows is entirely based on such **look** hacks, to make the many Windows toolkits look cohesive. Its a crappy solution, technically, but the market doesn't seem to care.
Re:corrections (Score:3, Interesting)
---------
I've been using KMail since the 2.x days, and I've never had it lose email.
I also find the interface to be rather buggy and quirky.
----------
How so? KMail's interface is pretty straightforward. Folders on left, mail on top right, current message on bottom right. Toolbar buttons to compose, save, and print emails, as well as download n
Re:These are a sign of Gnome success (Score:2)
Commercial vendors have already overwhelmingly opted to use Qt instead of GTK.
Commercial vendors have overwhelmingly opted
Re:These are a sign of Gnome success (Score:2, Insightful)
This is one of my worries. The KIOSlaves are nice in the extra functionality they offer within KDE (accessing remote filesystems over SCP or FTP for example).
However the more logical place for this would be in the kernel so that all applications can access the remote filesystem uniformly. The bulk of the implementation does not have to always be in the kernel, bu
Re:These are a sign of Gnome success (Score:2)
I may be interpreting this post http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-core-devel&m=10735989 9 930412&w=2
but, it seems like fuse_kio does just that.
Correct me if i'm wrong though.
Re:These are a sign of Gnome success (Score:2)
Re:These are a sign of Gnome success (Score:2, Insightful)
You had some good points, but I strongly disagree with that statement, unless by "someday" you mean far, far in the future.
Open Source is not a monoculture. There does not have to, nor should there be, "one true path". Should we have one file system type as well? Make "more" and "less" battle to the death?
People use the desktop they do because they WANT TO and can MAKE THE CHOICE. Why should we think that choice and preference will go away? Do we wa
Re:These are a sign of Gnome success (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:On Integration (Score:2, Insightful)
Visual diversity may indeed inspire progress because there would be more competition, but it's not very desirable. Developpers may like it, but if you want to show a desktop with 2 different themes, people who are used to see a consistent interface will be scared (or at least not be impressed) by it.
Not only will most people think it's ugly,
Re:On Integration (Score:2)
Gnome and KDE should unify vfs and other low level interfaces not create a MIXED edition where Gnome is no Gnome and KDE is no KDE
Re:Almost a Good Thing (Score:4, Insightful)
"Why are we so worried about the fact that publishers of closed source proprietary software who are used to paying for software development tools are going to have to continue that exact same practice in the OSS wordl?"
On the topic at hand, all I can say is sweet. Gimp, Evolution, Beep etc all fitting in KDE and where possible even getting to use the excellant KDE fileselector.
Re:Almost a Good Thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Now the wide variety of commercial applications for Linux et al can play nice with KDE!.
That remains true. Commercial applications written in other developement platforms will work inside KDE (they will behave differently, though). Oh, wait... doesn't KDE require a license for commercial applications... oh, never mind...they can't play nice together.
Well, now that integration is possible, instead of coding in QT you can write Gnome/GTK commercial applications and run them inside KDE, with the looks a
Re:Nuts! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Nice but... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Xmms2 ... EXCUSES MOI!?!? (Score:2)
Re:4 little indians... (Score:2)
What's worse - now I hear that you can get the same make and model of car, in different colours!
What's with that?
Whoever posted the above is an AC for a reason... (Score:3, Insightful)
Ummm... would the GIMP count as a major product? How 'bout GNUCash?
Let's face it: this guy's a bozo. And, yeah, a coward -- which is the reason he sits there, makes all these amazing, bizarre claims, with nothing to back them up, and posts as an AC.