> I am, to be quite blunt, more qualified to render an opinion on the
> compatibility of two licenses than ESR is. Frankly, I think ESR is a
> loon. ESR's imprimateur means virtually nothing to me; I am going on
> my personal evaluation of the licenses as I understand them.
I don't know about
On Fri, 22 Oct 1999 08:56:53 -0500, Aaron Malone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>As a side note, someone (I think kelly) described Qt as a 'dog'. I'm
>curious about this... my experiences with Qt have been great -- much
>easier to write in than Gtk+. I'm hardly an experienced X
>programmer, though.
On Fri, 22 Oct 1999 01:04:15 -0400 (EDT), Laurel Fan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Gnome and KDE will never merge because it would be very very hard and
>nobody would ever do it (unless you're volunteering here..). Harder
>than implementing every Gnome feature from scratch in KDE or vice
>versa. Gt
On Fri, 22 Oct 1999 09:09:01 -0400, "Caitlyn Martin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>I can't disagree with the latter statement, but it no longer applies
>to KDE. When TrollTech changed the license, it met the Open Source
>definition, at least sufficiently to satisy, form what I've read,
>Eric Raymon
On Fri, Oct 22, 1999 at 09:09:01AM -0400, Caitlyn Martin wrote:
> > KDE is released under the GPL, but Qt is not. You can't use KDE
> > without Qt. (It's questionable in my mind whether a GPL product
> > should rely on a third-party library which is not released under
> > the GPL, the LGPL, or a
> KDE is released under the GPL, but Qt is not. You can't use KDE
> without Qt. (It's questionable in my mind whether a GPL product
> should rely on a third-party library which is not released under
> the GPL, the LGPL, or an equivalently open license)
I can't disagree with the latter statement
>Ok. I thought you were saying that there's no reason for Gnome to exist
>if KDE is GPL.
[...]
>Anyway, I don't think there's any good reason to. Do you have one?
I don't have any good reasons to. I think it's a bad idea personally, and that
the competition benefits both projects.
In a previou
Excerpts from linuxchix: 22-Oct-99 Re: [techtalk] GUI's by
"Wendt,Andrew"@neo.rr.co
> I don't see it. The issue being discussed was the possible
> merger of Gnome and KDE.
Ok. I thought you were saying that there's no reason for Gnome to exist
if KDE is GPL.
KD
On Thu, 21 Oct 1999, you wrote:
>Excerpts from linuxchix: 21-Oct-99 Re: [techtalk] GUI's by
>"Wendt,Andrew"@neo.rr.co
>> KDE is released under the GPL... If both KDE and Gnome are GPL'd, you would
>> think there wouldn't be a problem with licensing.
&
On Thu, 21 Oct 1999 22:59:46 -0400, "Wendt,Andrew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>What makes Qt a dog?
I recall reading a profiling test that showed that Qt is about 10x as
slow as GTK for a rather common operation.
>>Last I checked the license Qt is to be released under is NOT
>>GPL-compliant.
Excerpts from linuxchix: 21-Oct-99 Re: [techtalk] GUI's by
"Wendt,Andrew"@neo.rr.co
> KDE is released under the GPL... If both KDE and Gnome are GPL'd, you would
> think there wouldn't be a problem with licensing.
KDE is released under the GPL. Qt is not released
On Thu, 21 Oct 1999, you wrote:
>This won't happen, for a variety of technical and political reasons.
>GNOME and KDE have markedly different design philosophies. Also, Qt
>is a dog (terribly inefficient!).
What makes Qt a dog?
>Last I checked the license Qt is to be released under is NOT
>GPL-
On Thu, 21 Oct 1999 09:16:43 -0400, Brendan/Coolian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>Last I checked the license Qt is to be released under is NOT
>>GPL-compliant. IHMO, IANYAL.
>Well, I read this on their site. Tended to believe it.
Troll is, of course, biased. You really shouldn't accept legal
o
>Last I checked the license Qt is to be released under is NOT
>GPL-compliant. IHMO, IANYAL.
Well, I read this on their site. Tended to believe it.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Excerpts from linuxchix: 20-Oct-99 Re: [techtalk] GUI's by
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I've been trying to follow the whole KDE/GNOME fiasco, and I was seeing
> down the road GNOME merging with KDE, because of the whole licensing
> resolution with the QT 2.0 set. It's now
On Wed, 20 Oct 1999 23:45:06 -0400, Brendan/Coolian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>I've been trying to follow the whole KDE/GNOME fiasco, and I was
>seeing down the road GNOME merging with KDE, because of the whole
>licensing resolution with the QT 2.0 set.
This won't happen, for a variety of tech
>Regardless of whether you can imagine it or not KDE and GNOME
>are on their way to take over the (Linux on the Desktop-) world.
I've been trying to follow the whole KDE/GNOME fiasco, and I was seeing
down the road GNOME merging with KDE, because of the whole licensing
resolution with the QT 2
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> >Do they layer on top of the X-windows environment? What is their use?
> >Is there someplace someone could direct me to learn more about this?
> Tell me about it. I still don't get it.
There is a set of layers that looks like this (usually):
Sessions
A
Am 10/20/99, 9:08:51 PM, schrieb Brendan/Coolian:
> I just stick with KDE, as I believe it'll be taking over
> the world.
Never mind! ;-)
Regardless of whether you can imagine it or not KDE and GNOME
are on their way to take over the (Linux on the Desktop-) world.
There are great advantages i
>Yup, this is one of the biggest problems people moving to Linux have,
>I think. Don't forget that there are various breeds of X as well, as
>well as Y and Berlin out there. :)
I think it's easiest to think of it as just different programs running in
different environments. Win3.1 apps runni
>Do they layer on top of the X-windows environment? What is their use?
>Is there someplace someone could direct me to learn more about this?
Tell me about it.
I still don't get it. I use KDE, and the way I think about it is that it
doesn't replace X, it lays on top of it and conforms to all o
Hi,
>
> > I can see how all this could be quite a shock to someone
> >coming from the windows world, where there is *one* windows manager,
> >*one* desktop, and *one* widget set.
>
> Yup, this is one of the biggest problems people moving to Linux have,
> I think. Don't forget that there ar
On Tue, 19 Oct 1999 09:55:11 -0400, Cathy James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> A window manager is the piece of executable code that renders
>stuff on the screen for you, and allows you to open and close
>windows, drag them around, resize them, etc.
Technically the window manager doesn't d
>Window managers come in a wide variety of colors and flavors. You have the
>basic "Motif" developed by OSF. There is also a "lesstif" which is
basically
>the same as Motif but with a few additional bells and whistles. Then you
have
>the "fvwm", "twm", "afterstep" (derived from NeXT), "Gnom
wow. I think we should start saving samantha's replies to questions like
that and archiving them somewhere. that's what, the third or fourth
*really* good one in the last few weeks -- rather in depth, yet
understandable.
Vinnie
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Cara,
> Anyways, I installed redhat 6.0 with the default settings, I guess. then I
> struggled a lot and managed to get X-windows set up and working. The whole
> concept of Gnome and KDE really perplexes me, though.
>
> Do they layer on top of the X-windows environment? What is their use?
> Is t
26 matches
Mail list logo
