Stop Microsoft
Operating Systems => Linux and UNIX => Topic started by: erosnemesis on 6 September 2003, 21:51
-
I was wondering what is the big deal with the 2 differenct type of sessions you can have (KDE & GNOME). I use KDE more because i can use my desktop more efficiently but i want to know what the major differences are.
Thanks
-
Well, as a noob (and damn proud of it ;) ) I think KDE is more user friendly...
I decided to use gnome first when I just installed Mandrake but decided it didn't fit me right away.
Maybe KDE has that little bit of "windows-Start button"ish feeling :D
As to differences, nothing major.
-
sorry to say but you are using mandrake and i am using RedHat Linux 9.0 and think they are kinda different because my GNOME and KDE both have that windows start button thing
-
quote:
Originally posted by erosnemesis:
sorry to say but you are using mandrake and i am using RedHat Linux 9.0 and think they are kinda different because my GNOME and KDE both have that windows start button thing
Red Hat is kinda on its own in this case
Red Hat has the two desktops (KDE Gnome) refurbished
by a group of developers and called it blucurve.
in the RH model KDE and Gnome look alike well exactly the same, but in most other Linuxes they look TOTALLY different and act very differently.
some programs are designed for either Gnome or KDE
they are that specifically different.
-
I like enlightenment. Its really cool. But on my main PC I use KDE cause it deals with switching locales more smoothly. Though I havn't used Gnomein a long time, I remember myself always wanting to go back to KDE when in gnome. But take a look at enlightenment, its really nice.
(http://smile.gif) V ;)
-
quote:
Originally posted by erosnemesis:
I was wondering what is the big deal with the 2 differenct type of sessions you can have (KDE & GNOME). I use KDE more because i can use my desktop more efficiently but i want to know what the major differences are.
Thanks
KDE isn't completely "Open Source" (unlike GNOME).
-
Yes it is. In fact not only is it completely "open source", it's completely Free Software.
-
i prefer KDE better, just because i find it easier to customize and make it look perty.
I do enjoy enlightenment quite a bit tho
-
quote:
Originally posted by flap:
Yes it is. In fact not only is it completely "open source", it's completely Free Software.
Euhm...
KDE not being completely open source was the main reason for GNU to start the Gnome project. Just read their introduction.
"Open Source" is FREE as in FREEDOM.
Your "Free Software" NOT always Open Source.
PS: And that IS the main difference between KDE and GNOME.
-
quote:
KDE isn't completely "Open Source" (unlike GNOME).
There was never any problem with this. The problem was that the libraries it used (QT) werent free. Now they are (under Linux at least - although I'm not sure your freedom extends to Windows ports which would seem to make it less free*) Oh and as far as I'm aware QT was always Open Source when KDE was using it, just not Free.
Enlightenment is the best WM, followed by Blackbox. And emacs is better than vim. (http://smile.gif)
* By this I mean for the Linux version to be free you must have the right to try and port that version to Windows. Pretty sure you do but anyway...
-
quote:
Originally posted by insomnia:
Euhm...
KDE not being completely open source was the main reason for GNU to start the Gnome project. Just read their introduction.
"Open Source" is FREE as in FREEDOM.
Your "Free Software" NOT always Open Source.
PS: And that IS the main difference between KDE and GNOME.
No, QT is now Free Software. Gnome being Free Software was the main reason why QT became Free Software.
And, no, Open Source is *not* always Free as in Freedom. There are many Open Source software projects that are not free. Free Software on the other hand *is* always 'Open Source'. I don't think you understand the difference between Free Software and Open Source. Read the link in my sig.
-
Originally posted by flap:
And, no, Open Source is *not* always Free as in Freedom.
*YES IT IS
There are many Open Source software projects that are not free.
*EXACTLTY MY POINT
Free Software on the other hand *is* always 'Open Source'.
*WRONG. SHAREWARE IS FREE BUT ISN'T OPEN SOURCE.
I don't think you understand the difference between Free Software and Open Source. Read the link in
*I DON'T REALLY CARE WHAT YOU THINK. (I never do, so don't take this as an insult.)
PS:KDE is a very good Open Source environment but ISN'T Open Source itself. Please DO check the Licence off ALL the KDE parts.
[ September 09, 2003: Message edited by: insomnia ]
-
Are you an idiot, or are you trying to be funny? I can't tell.
quote:
And, no, Open Source is *not* always Free as in Freedom.
*YES IT IS
No, it isn't.
quote:
There are many Open Source software projects that are not free.
*EXACTLTY MY POINT
And now you're agreeing with me?
quote:
Free Software on the other hand *is* always 'Open Source'.
*WRONG. SHAREWARE IS FREE BUT ISN'T OPEN SOURCE.
No, shareware is not Free. It's "free of charge" but it's not Free 'as in freedom'.
quote:
KDE is a very good Open Source environment but ISN'T Open Source itself
KDE is open source but it isn't open source?
Well, this is clearly a well informed debate.
-
quote:
Originally posted by flap:
Are you an idiot, or are you trying to be funny? I can't tell.
I'm an idiot.
-
...cause I believe in both "Open Source" and "Free Software Movement".
-
quote:
Originally posted by flap:
No, QT is now Free Software. Gnome being Free Software was the main reason why QT became Free Software.
So this "Flap" claims Qt is know entirely Free Software (after claiming it's also Open Source).
Funny, the peeps who build it DON'T!
They only claim it's later versions became Free Software and Open Source. You still need those LICENSED Qt libs for earlier KDE versions (still usefull for old computers).
From http://developer.kde.org/documentation/books/kde-2.0-development/ch19lev1sec3.html (http://developer.kde.org/documentation/books/kde-2.0-development/ch19lev1sec3.html)
19.3. The License Usage by Qt
The license used by Qt varies by version. The FreeQt license (used by Qt 1.45 and earlier) was not Open Source. The Q Public License (used by Qt 2.0 and later) is. KDE 1.1.2 and earlier is based on Qt 1.45, and KDE 2.0 is based on Qt 2.1.
...
The free version of Qt fell under the FreeQt license. This version was available only if the recipient's product was distributed under a free software license. It permitted the redistribution of Qt and access to the source code. However, it did not allow modifications of Qt to be redistributed. That final clause does not satisfy the requirements of the FSF definition and thus, it is not a free software license.
Open Source Definition:
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition_plain.php (http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition_plain.php)
(Most Open Source licenses like GPL, QTL, ... don't always follow this.)
KDE IS NOT ENTIRELY 'OPEN SOURCE' AND 'FREE SOFTWARE'.
THIS REALLY WAS THE MAIN REASON TO BUILD GNOME.
(...and flap's silly insults can't change this)
[ September 10, 2003: Message edited by: insomnia ]
-
quote:
KDE IS NOT ENTIRELY 'OPEN SOURCE' AND 'FREE SOFTWARE'.
Yes, it is. Look, I know you're having difficulty grasping this, but it's quite simple. As I said, QT wasn't always Free Software, but it is now. Again, as I said, it became Free Software because of pressure created by the development of GNOME.
The 'peeps' who developed it are saying what I am, that QT used to be non-free, but is Free now. Is this sinking in at all?
-
quote:
Originally posted by flap:
Yes, it is. Look, I know you're having difficulty grasping this, but it's quite simple. As I said, QT wasn't always Free Software, but it is now. Again, as I said, it became Free Software because of pressure created by the development of GNOME.
The 'peeps' who developed it are saying what I am, that QT used to be non-free, but is Free now. Is this sinking in at all?
...?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Qt 1.45 (and earlier) are STILL under 'The FreeQT' License.
Since you seem to have a reading problem I'll repeat it.
"The free version of Qt fell under the FreeQt license. This version was available only if the recipient's product was distributed under a free software license. It permitted the redistribution of Qt and access to the source code. However, it did not allow modifications of Qt to be redistributed. That final clause does not satisfy the requirements of the FSF definition and thus, it is not a free software license."
-
Yes, the EARLIER versions of QT. The CURRENT version of QT in use today is Free Software. You were originally suggesting that KDE is different from GNOME because KDE isn't Free Software/Open Source, when it actually is both Free Software and Open Source. The fact that previous versions of KDE/QT weren't FS doesn't negate the fact that it is Free now.
-
quote:
Originally posted by flap:
Yes, the EARLIER versions of QT. The CURRENT version of QT in use today is Free Software. You were originally suggesting that KDE is different from GNOME because KDE isn't Free Software/Open Source, when it actually is both Free Software and Open Source. The fact that previous versions of KDE/QT weren't FS doesn't negate the fact that it is Free now.
Wrong.
Only one month ago, I still needed an early version to build a desk based on KDE 1.x.
I don't think Trolltech would ever sue anyone for using it without their permission, but legally they have the right to do this.
Qt is only 'free' starting from 2.2
see: http://www.trolltech.com/developer/faqs/free.html#q43 (http://www.trolltech.com/developer/faqs/free.html#q43)
Gnome is build before this.
-
What is wrong in my post? How can I just be repeating the same thing over and over again and not have you understand? Yes, the EARLIER versions of QT, e.g. the version used in KDE 1.x is non-free.
Yes, I accept that QT pre-2.2 was, and still is, non-free. The current version of QT i.e. 3.x, however, IS free. So the current version of KDE is as Free as GNOME.
-
I only answord this question.
quote:
Originally posted by erosnemesis:
I was wondering what is the big deal with the 2 differenct type of sessions you can have (KDE & GNOME). I use KDE more because i can use my desktop more efficiently but i want to know what the major differences are.
Thanks
You disagreed.
The later(free) KDE versions are irrelevant.
Gnome is build before them.
PS: I think I prooved my point. (...and yes, I know I'm annoyingly stubbish) ;)
-
quote:
And, no, Open Source is *not* always Free as in Freedom.
*YES IT IS
No it's not. For those who pay lots of money Microsofts "shared source" is most certainly open but it isn't free.
quote:
There are many Open Source software projects that are not free.
*EXACTLTY MY POINT
Er you just contradicted yourself...
quote:
Free Software on the other hand *is* always 'Open Source'.
*WRONG. SHAREWARE IS FREE BUT ISN'T OPEN SOURCE.
FFS FREE AS IN FREEDOM
quote:
I don't think you understand the difference between Free Software and Open Source. Read the link in
*I DON'T REALLY CARE WHAT YOU THINK. (I never do, so don't take this as an insult.)
If you read the link you would understand.
quote:
...cause I believe in both "Open Source" and "Free Software Movement".
The open source movement is beneficial in that they help the movement towards freedom, but Free is better than Open.
quote:
PS:KDE is a very good Open Source environment but ISN'T Open Source itself. Please DO check the Licence off ALL the KDE parts.
KDE was always open source. The libraries it depended upon were open source. But they WERENT FREE.
quote:
They only claim it's later versions became Free Software and Open Source. You still need those LICENSED Qt libs for earlier KDE versions (still usefull for old computers).
Yes QT was open ("access to the source code") but NOT Free.
quote:
KDE IS NOT ENTIRELY 'OPEN SOURCE' AND 'FREE SOFTWARE'.
THIS REALLY WAS THE MAIN REASON TO BUILD GNOME.
(...and flap's silly insults can't change this)
KDE is and always was entirely open source. It is now ALSO entirely Free. BTW your misinformed opinion cant change this. ;)
quote:
Only one month ago, I still needed an early version to build a desk based on KDE 1.x.
I don't think Trolltech would ever sue anyone for using it without their permission, but legally they have the right to do this.
Yes KDE *NOW* ie current versions is free. The KDE used *previously* was not but was open source and depended upon open source parts. You have read a lot on QT but you havent read much on what Freedom is.
quote:
I don't think Trolltech would ever sue anyone for using it without their permission, but legally they have the right to do this.
No they cant. The license it was under meant it was available for personal use for no money with source just not Free. YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT IS MEANT BY FREE HERE. Read the link in Flaps sig.
quote:
You disagreed.
The later(free) KDE versions are irrelevant.
Gnome is build before them.
They arent irrelevant. They are the current version so CURRENTLY Kde is free. Mozilla was closed at one stage, then it went to open, now it is free. Please try and learn the distinction.
quote:
PS: I think I prooved my point. (...and yes, I know I'm annoyingly stubbish)
No you did not, and the word is "childish" not "stubborn."
[ September 10, 2003: Message edited by: Faust ]
-
hmm...despite the current argument going on (i have nothing to contribute)...
i have been using Gnome in Redhat 8 and 9 for a while now, and i'm happy with it. i have installed KDE, but never used it, so i can't help you there.
and still i don't know if you should listen to me because i am using a modified WM from redhat...
this has been a pointless post :(
-
quote:
Originally posted by Faust:
No you did not, and the word is "childish" not "stubborn."
[ September 10, 2003: Message edited by: Faust ]
Your know fun, I don't think I've ever seen so many mistakes in one post. (a joke?)
:eek: :eek: :eek:
If not, do u're self a favour and read this:
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition_plain.php (http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition_plain.php)
[ September 10, 2003: Message edited by: insomnia ]
-
1) In terms of the "current argument," try using italics, as opposed to caps, when trying to add emphasis. It's easier on the eyes, and just seems more polite for some reason ;)
2) I like KDE, but then again I use the Redhat-bluecurve-modified thing, so my view is also skewed.
-
quote:
Originally posted by insomnia:
Your know fun, I don't think I've ever seen so many mistakes in one post. (a joke?)
:eek: :eek: :eek:
If not, do u're self a favour and read this:
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition_plain.php (http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition_plain.php)
[ September 10, 2003: Message edited by: insomnia ]
Maybe you should read it yourself. KDE fits under all of those things.
-
quote:
Originally posted by TheQuirk:
Maybe you should read it yourself. KDE fits under all of those things.
No.
-
quote:
Originally posted by insomnia:
No.
No, huh? Good thing you weren't really broad, and gave details, right?
-
quote:
Originally posted by TheQuirk:
No, huh? Good thing you weren't really broad, and gave details, right?
I have dog named "Basje". (http://smile.gif) (http://smile.gif) (http://smile.gif)
-
KDE!
-
quote:
I have dog named "Basje".
Insomnia there a three people here who disagree with you. Please re read all the documents in question and make sure you understand the distinction between open, free and Free.
-
KDE is free and open, but it is based on proprietary software(Trolltech QT --- trolltech.com). The same way that Linux is based on Unix, not the way SCO says Linux is based on Unix though.
From KDE.org
quote:
UNIX/KDE constitutes a completely free and open computing platform available to anyone free of charge including its source code for anyone to modify.
sound like OSS to me
-
Linux is not based on Unix the same way KDE is based on QT.
If Unix was a library Linux compiled against, or something, that would be a good example. KDE, though, uses QT, which is a library.
-
quote:
Originally posted by TheQuirk:
Linux is not based on Unix the same way KDE is based on QT.
If Unix was a library Linux compiled against, or something, that would be a good example. KDE, though, uses QT, which is a library.
Yeah what he said
-
QT is not proprietary. It is entirely Free.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Faust:
QT is not proprietary. It is entirely Free.
But is it opensource?
-
For Gods fucking sake. FREE AS IN FREEDOM. Please actually *READ* about what the difference is. I know you mean well suselinux but you sound like insomnia...
-
quote:
Originally posted by Faust:
For Gods fucking sake. FREE AS IN FREEDOM. Please actually *READ* about what the difference is. I know you mean well suselinux but you sound like insomnia...
Beg yer pardon :(
soory, on the wrong bandwidth, I thought that YOU didn't know what free ment and were only reffering to the cost
But its annoying when people answer like the way I did
anyway are we all now agreed That KDE is free, and open? I think we'ved shown enough proof to support it
Personaly I like KDE better than Gnome
when Im working in Gnome I feel like I should be working not having fun, or even posting here. I should be writing a report and saying Yes sir, yes sir, yes sir.....
KDE to me represents how Linux can be attractive to everyone, you can make it look like Windows, like OSX, or like KDE. I also like the configuration options available, and the native apps I like much better than Gnome's.
I think the Linux community should standerdize on KDE ,and IceWM together on every system, let redhat and Sun have Gnome.
Does mad hatter come with KDE, IceWM, etc, or just Gnome?
-
quote:
Originally posted by suselinux:
anyway are we all now agreed That KDE is free, and open? I think we'ved shown enough proof to support it
Unlike what this 'faust' kid is telling you, ONLY the the latest Qt versions are licensed under both GPL and QPL. Between 1.45 and 2.x? only QPL.
*1.45 And below are under a different license named "FreeQT". FreeQT was NEVER "Open Source".
To clear this wrong information I decompiled a "Qt" package
###This is the license that included the package.###
QT FREE EDITION LICENSE
Copyright (C) 1992-1999 Troll Tech AS. All rights reserved.
This is the license for Qt Free Edition version 1.44; it covers private use,
use of third-party application programs based on Qt, and development of
free software for the free software community.
COPYRIGHT AND RESTRICTIONS
The Qt toolkit is a product of Troll Tech AS. The Qt Free Edition is limited
to use with the X Window System.
You may copy this version of the Qt Free Edition provided that the entire
archive is distributed unchanged and as a whole, including this notice.
You may use this version of the Qt Free Edition to compile, link and run
application programs legally developed by third parties.
You may use the Qt Free Edition to create application programs
provided that:
You accept this license.
Your software does not require modifications to Qt Free Edition. You satisfy ONE of the following three requirements
EITHER
Users of your software can freely obtain source code for the software, freely modify the source code (possibly with restrictions on copyright notices, attributions and legal responsibility), and freely redistribute original or modified versions of the software.
OR
Your software is distributed under the GNU GENERAL
PUBLIC LICENSE, version 2 or later, as defined by the Free Software Foundation.
OR
Your software is distributed under the GNU LIBRARY
GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE, version 2 or later, as
defined by the Free Software Foundation.
If you are paid to develop something with Qt Free Edition or it is a part of
your job the following conditions also apply:
Your software must not require libraries, programs, data or documentation that are not available outside your organization in order to compile or use.
If and when your organization starts using the software, you must notify Troll Tech AS of the following:
Your organization's name and purpose.
The software's name and purpose.
The software's license.
That your organization considers the software to be free software.
You may also use the Qt Free Edition to create reusable components
(such as libraries) provided that you accept the terms above, and in
addition that:
Your components' license includes the following text:
[Your package] requires the Qt library, which is
copyright Troll Tech AS. Freely distributable
programs may generally use Qt Free Edition free of
charge, see [README.QT] for details.
README.QT is distributed along with your components.
Qt Free Edition is not distributed as an integral part of your components.
LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY
Troll Tech AS makes no obligation under this license to support or
upgrade Qt Free Edition, or assist in the use of Qt Free Edition.
In no event shall Troll Tech AS be liable for any lost revenue or profits or
other direct, indirect, special, incidental or consequential damages, even
if Troll Tech has been advised of the possibility of such damages.
QT FREE EDITION IS PROVIDED AS IS WITH NO WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
INCLUDING THE WARRANTY OF DESIGN, MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE the differences for version 2.
PS: Don't get me wrong, I like KDE and if you only use one of the latest versions you will only be using "Open Source" software. But NOT if you use an old version(needfull for an old CPU)
-
quote:
anyway are we all now agreed That KDE is free, and open? I think we'ved shown enough proof to support it
Thanks, sorry I snapped at you... And insomnia grow the fuck up - I am not a child, so stop trying to justify your arguments with insults.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Faust:
Thanks, sorry I snapped at you... And insomnia grow the fuck up - I am not a child, so stop trying to justify your arguments with insults.
That wasn't an insult, your registration sais 19.
What's wrong with being young???
-
insomnia:
quote:
KDE isn't completely "Open Source" (unlike GNOME)
quote:
KDE not being completely open source was the main reason for GNU to start the Gnome project. Just read their introduction.
Lets of course ignore the PAST TENSE here...
quote:
]No, QT is now Free Software. Gnome being Free Software was the main reason why QT became Free Software.
quote:
There are many Open Source software projects that are not free.
*EXACTLTY MY POINT
You just contradicted yourself. You do this a *LOT*
quote:
Yes, I accept that QT pre-2.2 was, and still is, non-free. The current version of QT i.e. 3.x, however, IS free. So the current version of KDE is as Free as GNOME.
other people:
quote:
Maybe you should read it yourself. KDE fits under all of those things.
quote:
anyway are we all now agreed That KDE is free, and open? I think we'ved shown enough proof to support it
Throughout the course of this discussion your views have changed from:
kde isn't open source
to:
kde wasn't open source
to:
kde is as free as gnome
Given you can't even mantain a consistent argument try thinking about what you're saying more.
Suse : I think Mad Hatter will use an entirely new WM.
-
quote:
We maintain this free software definition to show clearly what must be true about a particular software program for it to be considered free software.
``Free software'' is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of ``free'' as in ``free speech,'' not as in ``free beer.''
Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:
The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission.
[ September 13, 2003: Message edited by: Faust ]
-
quote:
While free software by any other name would give you the same freedom, it makes a big difference which name we use: different words convey different ideas.
In 1998, some of the people in the free software community began using the term ``open source software'' instead of ``free software'' to describe what they do. The term ``open source'' quickly became associated with a different approach, a different philosophy, different values, and even a different criterion for which licenses are acceptable. The Free Software movement and the Open Source movement are today separate movements with different views and goals, although we can and do work together on some practical projects.
The fundamental difference between the two movements is in their values, their ways of looking at the world. For the Open Source movement, the issue of whether software should be open source is a practical question, not an ethical one. As one person put it, ``Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement.'' For the Open Source movement, non-free software is a suboptimal solution. For the Free Software movement, non-free software is a social problem and free software is the solution.
Relationship between the Free Software movement and Open Source movement
The Free Software movement and the Open Source movement are like two political camps within the free software community.
Radical groups in the 1960s developed a reputation for factionalism: organizations split because of disagreements on details of strategy, and then treated each other as enemies. Or at least, such is the image people have of them, whether or not it was true.
The relationship between the Free Software movement and the Open Source movement is just the opposite of that picture. We disagree on the basic principles, but agree more or less on the practical recommendations. So we can and do work together on many specific projects. We don't think of the Open Source movement as an enemy. The enemy is proprietary software.
We are not against the Open Source movement, but we don't want to be lumped in with them. We acknowledge that they have contributed to our community, but we created this community, and we want people to know this. We want people to associate our achievements with our values and our philosophy, not with theirs. We want to be heard, not obscured behind a group with different views. To prevent people from thinking we are part of them, we take pains to avoid using the word ``open'' to describe free software, or its contrary, ``closed'', in talking about non-free software.
So please mention the Free Software movement when you talk about the work we have done, and the software we have developed--such as the GNU/Linux operating system.
Comparing the two terms
This rest of this article compares the two terms ``free software'' and ``open source''. It shows why the term ``open source'' does not solve any problems, and in fact creates some.
Ambiguity
The term ``free software'' has an ambiguity problem: an unintended meaning, ``Software you can get for zero price,'' fits the term just as well as the intended meaning, ``software which gives the user certain freedoms.'' We address this problem by publishing a more precise definition of free software, but this is not a perfect solution; it cannot completely eliminate the problem. An unambiguously correct term would be better, if it didn't have other problems.
Unfortunately, all the alternatives in English have problems of their own. We've looked at many alternatives that people have suggested, but none is so clearly ``right'' that switching to it would be a good idea. Every proposed replacement for ``free software'' has a similar kind of semantic problem, or worse--and this includes ``open source software.''
The official definition of ``open source software,'' as published by the Open Source Initiative, is very close to our definition of free software; however, it is a little looser in some respects, and they have accepted a few licenses that we consider unacceptably restrictive of the users. However, the obvious meaning for the expression ``open source software'' is ``You can look at the source code.'' This is a much weaker criterion than free software; it includes free software, but also includes semi-free programs such as Xv, and even some proprietary programs, including Qt under its original license (before the QPL).
That obvious meaning for ``open source'' is not the meaning that its advocates intend. The result is that most people misunderstand what those advocates are advocating. Here is how writer Neal Stephenson defined ``open source'':
Linux is ``open source'' software meaning, simply, that anyone can get copies of its source code files.
I don't think he deliberately sought to reject or dispute the ``official'' definition. I think he simply applied the conventions of the English language to come up with a meaning for the term. The state of Kansas published a similar definition:
Make use of open-source software (OSS). OSS is software for which the source code is freely and publicly available, though the specific licensing agreements vary as to what one is allowed to do with that code.
Of course, the open source people have tried to deal with this by publishing a precise definition for the term, just as we have done for ``free software.''
But the explanation for ``free software'' is simple--a person who has grasped the idea of ``free speech, not free beer'' will not get it wrong again. There is no such succinct way to explain the official meaning of ``open source'' and show clearly why the natural definition is the wrong one.
Fear of Freedom
The main argument for the term ``open source software'' is that ``free software'' makes some people uneasy. That's true: talking about freedom, about ethical issues, about responsibilities as well as convenience, is asking people to think about things they might rather ignore. This can trigger discomfort, and some people may reject the idea for that. It does not follow that society would be better off if we stop talking about these things.
Years ago, free software developers noticed this discomfort reaction, and some started exploring an approach for avoiding it. They figured that by keeping quiet about ethics and freedom, and talking only about the immediate practical benefits of certain free software, they might be able to ``sell'' the software more effectively to certain users, especially business. The term ``open source'' is offered as a way of doing more of this--a way to be ``more acceptable to business.'' The views and values of the Open Source movement stem from this decision.
This approach has proved effective, in its own terms. Today many people are switching to free software for purely practical reasons. That is good, as far as it goes, but that isn't all we need to do! Attracting users to free software is not the whole job, just the first step.
Sooner or later these users will be invited to switch back to proprietary software for some practical advantage. Countless companies seek to offer such temptation, and why would users decline? Only if they have learned to value the freedom free software gives them, for its own sake. It is up to us to spread this idea--and in order to do that, we have to talk about freedom. A certain amount of the ``keep quiet'' approach to business can be useful for the community, but we must have plenty of freedom talk too.
At present, we have plenty of ``keep quiet'', but not enough freedom talk. Most people involved with free software say little about freedom--usually because they seek to be ``more acceptable to business.'' Software distributors especially show this pattern. Some GNU/Linux operating system distributions add proprietary packages to the basic free system, and they invite users to consider this an advantage, rather than a step backwards from freedom.
We are failing to keep up with the influx of free software users, failing to teach people about freedom and our community as fast as they enter it. This is why non-free software (which Qt was when it first became popular), and partially non-free operating system distributions, find such fertile ground. To stop using the word ``free'' now would be a mistake; we need more, not less, talk about freedom.
If those using the term ``open source'' draw more users into our community, that is a contribution, but the rest of us will have to work even harder to bring the issue of freedom to those users' attention. We have to say, ``It's free software and it gives you freedom!''--more and louder than ever before.
Would a Trademark Help?
The advocates of ``open source software'' tried to make it a trademark, saying this would enable them to prevent misuse. This initiative was later dropped, the term being too descriptive to qualify as a trademark; thus, the legal status of ``open source'' is the same as that of ``free software'': there is no legal constraint on using it. I have heard reports of a number of companies' calling software packages ``open source'' even though they did not fit the official definition; I have observed some instances myself.
But would it have made a big difference to use a term that is a trademark? Not necessarily.
Companies also made announcements that give the impression that a program is ``open source software'' without explicitly saying so. For example, one IBM announcement, about a program that did not fit the official definition, said this: As is common in the open source community, users of the ... technology will also be able to collaborate with IBM ...
This did not actually say that the program was ``open source'', but many readers did not notice that detail. (I should note that IBM was sincerely trying to make this program free software, and later adopted a new license which does make it free software and ``open source''; but when that announcement was made, the program did not qualify as either one.)
And here is how Cygnus Solutions, which was formed to be a free software company and subsequently branched out (so to speak) into proprietary software, advertised some proprietary software products: Cygnus Solutions is a leader in the open source market and has just launched two products into the [GNU/]Linux marketplace.
Unlike IBM, Cygnus was not trying to make these packages free software, and the packages did not come close to qualifying. But Cygnus didn't actually say that these are ``open source software'', they just made use of the term to give careless readers that impression.
These observations suggest that a trademark would not have truly prevented the confusion that comes with the term ``open source''.
Misunderstandings(?) of ``Open Source''
The Open Source Definition is clear enough, and it is quite clear that the typical non-free program does not qualify. So you would think that ``Open Source company'' would mean one whose products are free software (or close to it), right? Alas, many companies are trying to give it a different meaning.
At the ``Open Source Developers Day'' meeting in August 1998, several of the commercial developers invited said they intend to make only a part of their work free software (or ``open source''). The focus of their business is on developing proprietary add-ons (software or manuals) to sell to the users of this free software. They ask us to regard this as legitimate, as part of our community, because some of the money is donated to free software development.
In effect, these companies seek to gain the favorable cachet of ``open source'' for their proprietary software products--even though those are not ``open source software''--because they have some relationship to free software or because the same company also maintains some free software. (One company founder said quite explicitly that they would put, into the free package they support, as little of their work as the community would stand for.)
Over the years, many companies have contributed to free software development. Some of these companies primarily developed non-free software, but the two activities were separate; thus, we could ignore their non-free products, and work with them on free software projects. Then we could honestly thank them afterward for their free software contributions, without talking about the rest of what they did.
We cannot do the same with these new companies, because they won't let us. These companies actively invite the public to lump all their activities together; they want us to regard their non-free software as favorably as we would regard a real contribution, although it is not one. They present themselves as ``open source companies,'' hoping that we will get a warm fuzzy feeling about them, and that we will be fuzzy-minded in applying it.
This manipulative practice would be no less harmful if it were done using the term ``free software.'' But companies do not seem to use the term ``free software'' that way; perhaps its association with idealism makes it seem unsuitable. The term ``open source'' opened the door for this.
At a trade show in late 1998, dedicated to the operating system often referred to as ``Linux'', the featured speaker was an executive from a prominent software company. He was probably invited on account of his company's decision to ``support'' that system. Unfortunately, their form of ``support'' consists of releasing non-free software that works with the system--in other words, using our community as a market but not contributing to it.
He said, ``There is no way we will make our product open source, but perhaps we will make it `internal' open source. If we allow our customer support staff to have access to the source code, they could fix bugs for the customers, and we could provide a better product and better service.'' (This is not an exact quote, as I did not write his words down, but it gets the gist.)
People in the audience afterward told me, ``He just doesn't get the point.'' But is that so? Which point did he not get?
He did not miss the point of the Open Source movement. That movement does not say users should have freedom, only that allowing more people to look at the source code and help improve it makes for faster and better development. The executive grasped that point completely; unwilling to carry out that approach in full, users included, he was considering implementing it partially, within the company.
The point that he missed is the point that ``open source'' was designed not to raise: the point that users deserve freedom.
Spreading the idea of freedom is a big job--it needs your help. That's why we stick to the term ``free software'' in the GNU Project, so we can help do that job. If you feel that freedom and community are important for their own sake--not just for the convenience they bring--please join us in using the term ``free software''.
[ September 13, 2003: Message edited by: Faust ]
-
Just go on lying and insulting MR. Faust. If your that stupid I won't waste my time on you. (http://smile.gif) (http://smile.gif) (http://smile.gif)
-
I'm gonna use KDE when I install my Mandrake 9.1
-
Please point out where I am lying.
-
quote:
Originally posted by KiDwithIsSuEs 00:
I'm gonna use KDE when I install my Mandrake 9.1
Since Mandrake 9.1 uses KDE 3.x you won't have to worry about all this boring 'license' stuff. (http://smile.gif)
-
quote:
Originally posted by Dirk Gently:
In terms of the "current argument," try using italics, as opposed to caps, when trying to add emphasis. It's easier on the eyes, and just seems more polite for some reason ;)
I know(...and pleat guilty :( :rolleyes: ;) ).
Normally I don't react like that..., still this kind of wrong silly facts make it allot more difficult for 'a next generation' to understand. I really don't mind if people insult me during an argument. But I do mind when people start lying about facts. Still,... you're right about the 'italics'. (http://smile.gif) (http://smile.gif) ;)
[ September 13, 2003: Message edited by: insomnia ]
-
Ummm, The previous debate was niether informative nor educational...could someone please explain to me axactly what all this free as in freedom stuff is about...also to know is as in knowledge, no is a negative statement as in "You're no fun!" sorry, just one of my pet peaves :D
-
Free has a couple of meanings
either free as in no cash value
of free as in no bindings
this is the debate
when an opensource product is free, is it free or is it free
can you get it for nothing, or is it open and unbound from conventional patents
-
ohhhhhhhhh now i get it
carry on :D
-
quote:
when an opensource product is free, is it free or is it free
That's not the point being debated; it's not a question that can be answered. It's like saying "If someone writes a book, is it in English?" It's perfectly possible to write a piece of software and release it under Open Source but very unambiguously Non-Free conditions. For something to be Free Software it must be unambiguously free, and one of the many freedoms implicit in this is the freedom for everyone to study the source code i.e. the only freedom the Open Source movement is interested in.
quote:
can you get it for nothing, or is it open and unbound from conventional patents
The issue is copyright, not patents. Also, whether or not you can get the software for nothing doesn't necessarily have any bearing on it being either OSS or FS.
quote:
Ummm, The previous debate was niether informative nor educational...could someone please explain to me axactly what all this free as in freedom stuff is about...also to know is as in knowledge, no is a negative statement as in "You're no fun!" sorry, just one of my pet peaves
Read the link in my sig.
-
I'll read the link...Hopefully it will clearly define the difference between freeware, shareware, addaware and free...I just wanna learn :D and am still confused on this whole ftp downloading thing...just wanna try out SuSe and can't even get the friggin thing started...anyway that's off topic, am glad ya'll cleared that up for me!!!
-
quote:
Originally posted by flap:
quote:when an opensource product is free, is it free or is it free
That's not the point being debated; it's not a question that can be answered. It's like saying "If someone writes a book, is it in English?" It's perfectly possible to write a piece of software and release it under Open Source but very unambiguously Non-Free conditions. For something to be Free Software it must be unambiguously free, and one of the many freedoms implicit in this is the freedom for everyone to study the source code i.e. the only freedom the Open Source movement is interested in.
quote:can you get it for nothing, or is it open and unbound from conventional patents
The issue is copyright, not patents. Also, whether or not you can get the software for nothing doesn't necessarily have any bearing on it being either OSS or FS.
Read the link in my sig.
I was only trying to explain this in the most general of terms
but I see your point
-
quote:
it's not a question that can be answered. It's like saying "If someone writes a book, is it in English?"
actually that's a question which can be answered quite easily by looking inside the book.
re: "the two sessions", thereare a damn site more than two. try out windowmaker, xfce, fvwm2, icewm etc etc also
-
quote:
Originally posted by AmericanBastard:
Ummm, The previous debate was niether informative nor educational...could someone please explain to me axactly what all this free as in freedom stuff is about...also to know is as in knowledge, no is a negative statement as in "You're no fun!" sorry, just one of my pet peaves :D
see this link for more info (http://promote-opensource.org/modules/xoopsfaq/index.php?cat_id=3#q10) about this.
here's a whole book you can read (http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/) online for free (as in lunch) about it.it's a good read too.
-
quote:
actually that's a question which can be answered quite easily by looking inside the book.
Well that's the whole point, I'm talking about a hypothetical book that hasn't been written yet. You can't possibly debate whether or not an open source program is free, it depends on whatever licence the program is released under. It's like asking how long a piece of string is.
[ September 21, 2003: Message edited by: flap ]
-
Dear reader the GNOME armageddon has started,
First of all I want to clarify that this text was meant to be a source of information otherwise i wouldn't have spent so much time into writing it.
Belive me it took me a couple of days writing this text in a foreign language.
Even if you don't care at all for GNOME, you may find some interesting information within this text that you like to read. please try to understand my points even if it's hard sometimes, otherwise you wake up one day and feel the need to switch to a different operating system.
On the following lines i'm trying to give you a little insight of the GNOME community. the things that are going on in the back, the information that could be worth talking and thinking about.
Many of us like the GNOME desktop and some of us were following it since the beginning. GNOME is a promising project because it's mostly written in C, easy to use, configurable and therefore fits perfectly into the philosophy of *NIX, only to name some of its advantages.
Unfortunately these advantages changed with the recently new released version of GNOME. The core development team somehow got the idea of targeting GNOME to a complete different direction of users, the so called corporate desktop user.
In other words they're targeting people that aren't familiar or experienced with desktop environments. usually business oriented people who are willing to pay money for getting GNOME on their computers.
Having this new target in mind, the core development team mostly under contract by companies like RedHat,Ximian and Sun decided to simplify the desktop as much as even possible by removing all its flexibility in favor of an easy clean simple interface to not confuse their new possible customers. So far the idea of a clean easy to use desktop is honourable.
Some of the new ideas, features and implementations such asgconf, an evil Windows Registry-like system, new ordering of buttons and dialogs, the removal of 90%-95% of all visible preferences from the control center and applications, the new direction that GNOME leads and the attitude of the core development team made a lot of users really unhappy. These are only a couple of examples and the list can easily be expanded but for now this is enough. Now let me try to get deeper into these aspects.
You may imagine that users got really frustrated because their beloved GNOME desktop matured into something they didn't want. During the time, the frustration of a not less amount of people increased. more, more and more emails arrived on the GNOME mailinglists where users tried to explain their concerns, frustrations and the leading target of GNOME.
But the core development team of GNOME don't give a damn about what their users are thinking or wanting and most of the time they come up with their standard purl. The reply they give is mostly the same -- users should either go and 'file a bug' at BugZilla or the user mails are being turned so far that at the end they sound like being trolls or the user feedback is simply not wanted. whatever happens the answers aren't really satisfying for the user. even constructive feedback isn't appreciated.
If you gonna think about this for a minute then things gonna harden that they are directing into the commercial area. The core development team actually don't care for the complaining home user -- it's more important for them to reach the customers with the cash. It seems that this has been told to them by the company leaders -- everything about GNOME has been decided already, a way back or direct communication isn't possible. Don't get trapped by sentences like 'we listen to our users'. They listen to you -- yes, to make funny silly jokes about you afterwards.
I thought that everything was build up on friendship, build on programming for fun, build on understanding each other. But the reality looks like it's all for the big money. The cash is what matters everything else is a lie and a dream. Time for people to wake up.
Not long ago they threw one of the most important long year core developer Martin Baulig out of team -- a guy who worked really hard on getting GNOME into the right direction, a nice friendly person who put all his time into GNOME.
But narrow minded GNOME elites such as Havoc Pennington were responsible that he left the GNOME project -- the trouble and the pressure that was put on him was to much.
With the new GNOME desktop a lot of user interface changes happened such as button reordering -- needless to say that this confuse people who are used to the 'right' button ordering for ages. Even our fellow Linux guru Alan
Cox wasn't thrilled about this idea, but the GNOME elites such as Havoc Pennington, Seth Nickell, Calum Benson and Dave Bordoley knew it better. Why following the road of any other desktop that exists ? Why not doing something that don't confuse their users and still stay usable ? Well it seems to be too easy. GNOME needs to be different than anything else so they changed the button order which was one of the reasons that users became unhappy. They said that there was a hard fight about this and the decision was made to change the buttons. But I belive they simply copied the behaviour of Mac OS because most of the GNOME developers use a McIntosh as either laptop or desktop. Sad that they forgot to keep in mind that users tend to mix applications and that this will lead into weird button searching and clicking.
But as if this wasn't enough the same people decided that the new GNOME Human Interface
Guides were the ultima non plus ultra in human interface guides. The announcement contained informations that the KDE usability people got initiated into it. Unfortunately the KDE people heard about it the first
time when Seth Nickell went to the KDE mailing list which happened after the announcement. You can imagine that they got highly pissed off about this attitude. You can read more on this link. To summarize it, the KDE people clarified that GNOME should care for their own business.
The problem that came with the new interface guides was, that every little GNOME hacker started to become an user interface expert over night. A lot of GNOME programs that we like to use matured into a disaster over night. Hackers that never programmed correctly for their life started to blindly follow the hype of simplification. For an example look what happened to Galeon's interface (pay attention for the last paragraph). Even Philip Langdale a long year galeon hacker got highly indignant by the target that GNOME leads and wrote this email to the Galeon mailinglist.
Here another reason why users became angry. The elite assumes, that the user knows nothing about their system. you find a couple of heavily insulting mails on their mailing lists containing sentences like the quoted ones.
"the user don't know what a window manager is",
"the user don't know what themes are",
"the user don't know what a homedir is",
"the user can't compile a kernel",
"the user don't want to customize their desktop",
"the user shouldn't see preferences which purpose they don't know"
You may imagine that a lot of people are being offended by such lines because it's exactly these GNOME users who are meant by these phrases. To read more such lines on the GNOME mailinglists, simply click on this link and grep in their archives. Be said that most of these sentences are coming from Havoc Pennington.
Such evil practices shouldn't be tolerated by the users and need to be fighted. *NIX users aren't stupid people. Who actually gave Havoc Pennington the rights to decide what the user wants and what not ? Various users told him that people who use a *NIX like system are well aware of their capabilities dealing with such a complex system. There's a reason why people are switching from alternative operating systems. They want to learn, they want to use the full power of the system, they want to change everything they like.
To top all this, look at the future plans of Nautilus. The current maintainers got the idea of changing the whole Nautilus concepts into an object oriented user interface design. You may be highly interested in reading the exact words of Alex Larsson's vision for Nautilus' future direction by clicking on this link.
To summarize it, it's assumed that the user don't need to deal with his homedir or his whole filesystem because it may confuse him or because he don't understand it. The new concepts of Nautilus should be that the user deal with symbols in the Nautilus view. E.G. you get a cdrom symbol and by clicking on it you see the directory of your cdrom, you get a photo symbol and by clicking on it you get a list of all your pr0n pictures, you get a music symbol and by clicking on it you get a list of all your mp3's. You don't know where all these files are located because you don't deal with the bottom layer of your homedir or filesystem anymore as mentioned earlier.
The question is why are people that know nothing about their users, that know nothing about correct user interface design destroying GNOME ? The users don't deserve all this specially those that backed GNOME for all the years. Even sun threw a bunch of so called user interface experts together and have them work on GNOME. don't forget that sun are the creators of the Common Desktop Environment. We don't need another CDE clone named GNOME. Even Havoc Pennington author of the good user interfaces text isn't able to get his own written software following his rules.
Not long ago there was an report about the 'two captains of Nautilus' where the reporter (Uraeus a GNOME contributor himself) reported Alexander Larsson and David camp. You may imagine that such a report can't be taken serious because it's done by their own people. We here have a saying that sounds like this 'one crow doesn't hack the eye of another crow out'. Now you can click on this
link and read more. It may be interesting to read the replies from various users all over the globe of what they think about GNOME and Nautilus in general (please pay attention to the listed ip's there). Another nice and informative reading can be found by clicking on this link.
The fileselector problem was a long discussed issue in the GNOME community. Finally they came to an solution for this and have decided to go for this ugly fileselector instead going for this one which was developed by a free volunteer for a long time and in general looks and behaves better.
most users have no problems with the idea of keeping things simple and clean. Removing some not needed preferences was indeed a good idea but it doesn't stop. People started to remove everything from their apps. You're forced to use dubious programs like GConf-editor which basically works like the Windows Registry editor, to tweak uncommented preferences. I don't think that this is an advantage. Even the possibility to tweak preferences with an editor was taken away with that ugly implementation of GConf. All your preferences are stored in a directory tree with an unknown amount of *.xml files. Even if you delete programs their keys are still remaining orphaned in these trees and finding them is like playing trivia. At the end it's worth a discussion if a system driven by a single home user needs such a registry like system. We didn't need such a system for over 30 years but the GNOME development team got the idea copying one of the most retarded systems from Windows to *NIX. Not to mention that the copy is more retarded than the original.
It's a shame to see how such a nice desktop got thrown into the trash by such people. But there is a lot more behind the scenes that i don't know about. Everything around GNOME is a big marketing strategy. Poor people are working the hell out of GNOME for nothing and companies such as those mentioned above are getting the big cash. for sure you could say - go and fork GNOME - but seriously how can you go and fork GNOME ? such a big project which needs a bunch of people to keep the code alive and compatible. Well you know it's all about open source the code is signed under the GNU/GPL or GNU/LGPL, you can't own it. Even the companies are aware of this. But if you can't own the code - go and hire their developers. You can direct them like puppets in any direction that you - as company - like. Exactly this is happening with GNOME.
well you could easily come up and tell me to simply not use GNOME and let them do whatever they like. Well, you are right with that but things are more complicated nowadays. GNOME is influencing a lot of third party projects such as XFree86 which recently added a lot of GNOME components into their CVS repository. Please know that with the next coming XFree86 version you get a lot of GNOME components without even knowing it. code like, GNOME-XML, pkgconfig, fontconfig, xcursor and xft2 were mainly written by people who're heavily involved into GNOME development. Also the GIMP is maturing more and more into getting the look and feel of a native GNOME application. The CVS version of the GIMP has a lot of GNOME pixmaps inside and they are heavily working on integrate the GIMP into GNOME. If not today but the direction is sure and i fear the day this gonna happen.
It's ok that these things exist and it's ok to see XFree86 and the GIMP are beeing hacked on. But please think about the people that don't like or use GNOME. What about them ? Why force them to have GNOME components installed on their systems ? Why can't GNOME go the same way that KDE went e.g. doing their own stuff without infecting other projects like AIDS. Seeing more and more libraries and applications that were in no way related to GNOME jumping on the pkgconfig boat which's really not needed. Look what will happen to Solaris, the world famous operating system on *NIX used by big companies and long years
experts. They really plan to replace cde with GNOME. I know that cde wasn't the best invention of desktops but it rarely crashed and it fits far better into the philosophy of XFree86 with their configuration system than GNOME. You know the good old way having your settings defined with .xdefaults and all nice default configurations are going into /etc/x11/app-defaults/ and so on. Understandable that the good old way may be blocking the future of applications for multiusersystems - but why must it have to be a Windows Registry like system that replaces future configuration ?
Well to come to an end I personally don't like many of this stuff. I can't stand the button reordering, I don't like the GConf system and even more I don't like the commercial outsourcing of GNOME and the bad influence that GNOME has on other applications. The bad attitude of some GNOME developers is another story since we are all different reacting humans. Luckily there are people sharing some of my thoughts otherwise I wouldn't be able to proof my text with so many links. Even amongst the GNOME developers there are silent voices of people that hate many of these decisions and silently use something else.
Right now if you checkout the GNOME CVS repository every day you find out that the whole GNOME development seemed to came to an halt. The contributions to their CVS are poor. While projects such as KDE are reaching easily 10-20K commits per month - GNOME is getting around 1-2K per month on it's best times.
It really looks like the situation of GNOME is unclear so it would be better to have it not influence so much other programs or at the end we deal with an disaster.
Now I hope this text was informative for you. I hope that you start to think about the situation and the global direction. The situation of GNOME is unclear, their target is groggy too since I can't belive that the users that they are targeting ever heard of *NIX or Linux. They plan to get out of the 0.05% desktop niche but this will for sure not happen if they continue their current direction and their bad ugly attitude.