View Poll Results: There is a hidden political agenda to promote... (select all that apply)

Voters
93. You may not vote on this poll
  • Gnome , for political reasons, to the detriment of KDE/XFCE/[insert marginal DE]

    25 26.88%
  • KDE, for political reasons, to the detriment of Gnome/XFCE/[insert marginal DE]

    7 7.53%
  • XFCE, for political reasons, to the detriment of Gnome/KDE/[insert marginal DE]

    5 5.38%
  • [Insert marginal DE], for inconsequent reasons, to the detriment of Gnome/KDE/XFCE

    8 8.60%
  • Not only that, but I also have the facts to prove it

    10 10.75%
  • Personally, I believe in Gnome

    12 12.90%
  • Personally, I believe in KDE

    32 34.41%
  • Personally, I believe in Steve Jobs

    7 7.53%
  • Personally, I am a Microsoft apologist

    6 6.45%
  • Personally, I believe you are a troll and that this thread is rubbish

    56 60.22%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 3 of 57 FirstFirst 123451353 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 564

Thread: Does a grand evil conspiracy lie behind specific Desktop Environments?

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,723

    Default

    oh, and then this:
    http://doc.trolltech.com/4.4/license...xceptions.html

    yes, Qt is more free than gtk. As KDE is more free than gnome.

  2. #22

    Default

    Quite funny thing:

    http://linuxfinances.info/info/qtcontroversy.html


    Don't use C; In my opinion, C is a library programming language not an app programming language.

    --Owen Taylor
    and:

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/09...ies_kde_gnome/

    Of course, the underlying applications still use different toolkits and style guides - they're every part "two Universes", as Taylor puts it. But he says that unifying the warring camps is a task beyond even Red Hat.

    "Red Hat has no intention of forcing cooperation on the two projects (or ability to do so)," he writes.

    "We don't think it is in our best interest, or our users' best interest to have two separate unrelated desktop universes within our product."
    Red Hat is the only distro to consistently favor the ideologically-correct Gnome over the more mature KDE, and unsurprisingly KDE members have been extremely skeptical about the rationale offered by Taylor (a Gnome developer)
    Maybe that's why KDE is so messed up in Fedora. Btw. what ideologically-correct means? :> (quote from article, not Owen's words).

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Under the bridge
    Posts
    2,128

    Default

    Qt was free only for non-commercial apps until last year. GTK has always been free for both commercial and non-commercial apps, so it wins there.

    Also, GPL is one of the most restrictive licenses in existence today. LGPL is way more free than GPL.

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    Quite funny thing:

    http://linuxfinances.info/info/qtcontroversy.html

    Don't use C; In my opinion, C is a library programming language not an app programming language.
    You do understand that this is damning for Qt, don't you? Qt, a library, is written in C++ which is definitely not a "library programming language". Not to mention that Qt relies on a terrible terrible hack-fest of the C preprocessor. GTK is much cleaner as a design - which is why it is already usable by more programming languages than Qt will ever be.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Have a good day.
    Posts
    678

    Default

    Well, personally I thought this was not to be taken seriously, but I'm starting to see the point. Let's see if we can focus on the big picture.

    I don't think anybody will get surprised if I say that KDE is a vastly superior technology than Gnome. For decades KDE has been pushing new concepts to the desktop, bridging the gap between freedom and usability for linux users. So much so that M$ Windows copied some of its features and look. With this in mind, it seems odd that KDE 4, the highest point of the linux desktop to date, is only present IN A HANDFUL of linux distributions. This figure can only be appreciated in perspective when one sees the 300+ distros present in DistroWatch. On the other hand, the sickening ever-shrinking set of features that Gnome throws down users' throats brings it as a reward a surprisingly high rate of success. Ubuntu, the favourite of Phoronix and the flag carrier of the Gnome front, but also the so called 'professional distros', blatantly favour an inferior (as we saw) technology. In fact, seeing what Gnome has to offer, one can't help thinking that its users have to be very stupid. And this is not a simple matter of choice for the default desktop. Think about it, why is Kubuntu an incredible piece of shit version after version? Why apparently DE-agnostic packages suddenly break ONLY in kubuntu? Why bugs are solved much more rapidly in the default, gnomish version? Why can't I change the preferences of my screensavers? Why OpenSuse sucks monkey balls?

    Yes, why is this happening? Well, LACKING facts (apart from the obvious ones that nobody with half a brain can deny like the superiority of KDE over Gnome), we can only make EDUCATED guesses, based on past experience, future prospects, common sense, and a stainless steel determination to overcome deception. This procedure is not all too alien a concept for people with far greater insights than most (all?) of us here: Who can forget R.M.S. remarks about one of Micro$_$haft recent attempts at introducing itself as the 5th column of the communinity? Let's take a look to see whether we can learn a lesson or two (emphasis mine):

    Quote Originally Posted by R. M. S.

    [...]there is PLENTY OF REASON to be wary of the organization [CodePlex].

    Someday we will [...] JUDGE the organization BY ITS ACTIONS. Today we [...] ANTICIPATE what it will do, based on its statements and Microsoft's statements.

    Its [...] goal is to convince "commercial software companies" to contribute more to "open source". [...] but the "open source" philosophy DOESN'T TEACH developers to defend their FREEDOM. If they don't UNDERSTAND the importance of this FREEDOM, developers MAY SUCCUMB to Microsoft's ploys [...] to "embrace and extend".

    WE DON'T KNOW that the CodePlex Foundation will try to discourage GPL version 3, but it WOULD FIT Microsoft's pattern.

    Based ON THESE FACTS, we can see that CodePlex WILL encourage developers NOT TO THINK [...].

    It WILL SPREAD the idea that free software business is IMPOSSIBLE without the support of [...] Microsoft.

    To remain FREE, we must make freedom OUR goal.

    However GOOD OR BAD the CodePlex Foundation's actions, we must NOT accept them.

    Microsoft continues to act TO HARM US. We would be FOOLS indeed to let anything distract us from that.
    Thanks once more, Richard, for the insights (*). Indeed, great forces at work here. Well, fool me one, shame on you, fool me twice...

    I won't provide any further evidence here. The attempts at DUMBING DOWN the linux desktop have a very precise objective. Right when linux was taking off with the advent of an ideal hardware platform (netbooks) to SHOW OFF linux SUPERIORITY (think Compiz), when KDE reached the stability AND maturity that it never actually lacked and when PulseAudio at last started to WORK at its fullest potential, the not-so-veiled efforts of the likes of Novell, Icaza and M$ redoubled TO keep it from the masses. That's the only interpretation that we can give to this APPARENTLY non-sensical chain of decisions that favour THE STUPID alternative over the free, technically sound one. Just think for yourself, WHO benefits from this situation?

    PS. And don't get ME started on MONO.

    (*) You can read the complete declaration in Stallman's blog.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    164

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackStar View Post
    Qt was free only for non-commercial apps until last year. GTK has always been free for both commercial and non-commercial apps, so it wins there.

    Also, GPL is one of the most restrictive licenses in existence today. LGPL is way more free than GPL.
    If you're speaking about freedom as intended by FSF then GPL is freer than LGPL.

    If you're speaking about freedom as in "the licensing term are more permissive to the developers using it" then Qt wins again. You can have Qt in more different licenses, let's compare:
    • Qt: GPLv2, GPLv3, LGPLv2 or proprietary licence (by paying)
    • GTK: LGPLv2 for sure, others I don't know.


    So while it was already difficult to argue that "so GTK wins there", it however was at least "so GTK won there before spring 2008".
    Last edited by panda84; 11-30-2009 at 05:56 PM. Reason: Typo

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Radoboj, Croatia
    Posts
    155

    Default

    yotambien, thank you very much for this post. It really opened my eyes...

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    772

    Default

    To this very day, a shadowy cabal continues to suppress the obviously superior AmigaOS environment.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,610

    Default

    Well i still like KDE 3.5 - it is performing very well. Of course KDE 4 has compiz like features builtin and widgets, but if you really only want your things done in a fast way it is still nice. Some think that GNOME is better for beginners, i can not follow this. GNOME or any other GTK2 based DE has the F10 key used for menu - that makes mc only work with the ESC-0 fallback - maybe you can change that, just dont know where - but the default is not nice. If you are a heavy console user i think you wont use GNOME in first place. KDE 4 is getting more stable but it is definitely slower than KDE 3. When you choose a distro by the used DE then you should stick on the default, as that's usually the best maintained. That seems to be the reason for the relatively poor performance of Kubuntu as it looks just like a stepchild. So choose wisely...

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Merida
    Posts
    1,099

    Default

    Kubuntu (and Xubuntu for that matter) are pet projects. I remember that been the general rational from the maintainers themselves when a similar discussion broke out. No surprise then that Ubuntu is the "superior" version.
    Fedora is GNOME centric. While their KDE implementation is far better than Kubuntu, the desktop itself just feels "wrong" and not a proper KDE desktop.
    OpenSuse I have noticed the change. Shame, because it used to be my "KDE fix" distro of choice. Still a much better KDE experience than Kubuntu though.
    I generally don't mind distros preferring one DE over another; as long as they offer the choices it's all good. What does tick me off is when they don't bother to properly represent other DEs besides their default. Why offer the choice in the first place then? Better not to offer anything at all than to bring out something broken.

  10. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DoDoENT View Post
    Yotambien, thank you very much for this post. It really opened my eyes...
    Yes, thank you.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •