Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UserLinux Will Support KDE

Comments Filter:
  • by bc90021 (43730) * <bc90021@bc9002[ ]et ['1.n' in gap]> on Sunday February 01, 2004 @12:14PM (#8151029) Homepage
    ...and I quote:

    "I already have a customer asking for Perens LLC to provide commercial support for KDE on the UserLinux platform. And we will do so, even though KDE is not the chosen GUI of the UserLinux project. This is an
    option for any UserLinux service provider."

    So, in other words, if your customers want it, you should provide it. Makes sense to me. ;)
    • by craXORjack (726120) on Sunday February 01, 2004 @12:17PM (#8151042)
      And the name of the customer is... ...Trolltech!
    • So, in other words, if your customers want it, you should provide it. Makes sense to me. ;)
      And the holy grail? The idea of FREE software? (Distinguished from Free Software, which is GPL licensed, but with another license as a choice.)
    • Makes sense. If you aren't being paid, you do what you feel like. If someone's willing to pay, then you pay some attention to what he wants. (You might still decide not to go that way...but if it's just been "why bother?", then you've got an answer.)

    • Why should somebody provide KDE support who hates it. I haven't seen Perens Vaporware yet. UserLinux, this is no product, this was just another initiative. I prefer distribution projects that keep silent and actually help to improve Debian. Such as Skolelinux [skolelinux.no], a Linux environment for schools that can be used by an idiot as admin.

      Forget about the business people, Bruce. They are talking trash. Such as the great supporter IBM that also kindly provides us with software patent law in Europe. -- a real nice fri
  • Choice is good... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by _Pinky_ (75643) on Sunday February 01, 2004 @12:20PM (#8151059)
    Thats the one driving force, even above open source, that I think pulls people to GNU/Linux...

    I mean people clammer about window manager themes almost as much as the window managers themselves...

    Think of the solitary driving force, it's choice... Even as far to the point where if you don't like a certain aspect of a piece of software you can look at the source and change it...

    So, to exclude any piece of software would, at heart, be hypocritical, given the open source method.

    Just my two cents as a staunch Gnome user...
    • by _|()|\| (159991)
      to exclude any piece of software would, at heart, be hypocritical

      It should not be the responsibility of the distro to package every piece of software a user could conceivably want. In fact, the more software a distro includes, the less confident I am that they can maintain it properly.

      While a distro should include the libraries necessary to run KDE, GNOME, and Motif applications, it's fine for it to standardize on one desktop environment / window manager. After all, one aspect of choice is choosing a di

  • by valkadesh (450943) on Sunday February 01, 2004 @12:25PM (#8151091)
    What Perens is saying is that is own consulting company will offer support for KDE as a service provider. Gnome is still the only chosen GUI for UserLinux.
    • by yanestra (526590) on Sunday February 01, 2004 @12:37PM (#8151158) Journal
      What Perens is saying is that is own consulting company will offer support for KDE as a service provider. Gnome is still the only chosen GUI for UserLinux.
      Uncool.
      More people like you and /. will cease to exist.

      Stop spoiling /. discussions with unnecessary realism or old-fashioned think patterns like truth and false.

    • by manyoso (260664) on Sunday February 01, 2004 @12:55PM (#8151262) Homepage
      ... which completely breaks Bruce's latest rationale for excluding KDE in the first place:

      "it's just too hard to support both..."

      also throws some cold water on the other ridiculous rationales he uses from time to time, depending upon if the mood suits him:

      "Qt can't support a coveted cottage industry of proprietary developers..."

      yah, well, except for the current 'cottage industry' that overwhelmingly has chosen Qt for commercial development...

      so Bruce's is left with one rationale for his decision to exclude KDE from the default of UL:

      "I've already made the choice ... inertia"
      • When I read the line about it being too hard to support both, I read that as a distribution management problem. ie. it is too much effort to try and keep track of both projects and keep them up to date for UserLinux, when it didn't really meet the goals of the distribution.

        Even if that's not what was intended, we also have to look at the fact that UserLinux seems to almost be like a distribution that's *intended* to be repackaged / redistributed by other companies for their own markets. Here, too, is a pro
        • "When I read the line about it being too hard to support both, I read that as a distribution management problem. ie. it is too much effort to try and keep track of both projects and keep them up to date for UserLinux, when it didn't really meet the goals of the distribution."

          Uhm, no. First, Bruce explicitly said he was talking about his support company and its unacceptable difficulty in supporting KDE/Qt. Second, what are you talking about the difficulty of keeping up with the distro?! UL's current 'di
          • OK, so I guess I was wrong on that. I've tried to do a bit more research, and you're right in that I'm wrong, but I still don't agree with what you're saying.

            So I can't find a link to the original announcement, but according to this link [userlinux.com], I see no mention of his support company. Yes, I know he was talking about LLC in this last message, but I'm talking about at the start.

            Firstly, (in the link) there is no real mention of a difficulty in supporting Qt. The difficulty and *expense* lies in supporting two

            • Narcissus, it seems you are communicating in good faith. Thanks.

              Bruce has used the expense/impossibility of supporting both desktops interchangably with his other psuedo-rationales. He has used the support argument lately, not just at the beginning. Now, we find that he has done a complete 180 degree turn and will be supporting KDE with the original service providing company. The idea that every service provider must offer demanding support for every piece of default UL base is a red herring. They do
        • "we also have to look at the fact that UserLinux seems to almost be like a distribution that's *intended* to be repackaged / redistributed by other companies for their own markets."

          Hardly any "almost" about it. UserLinux is supposed to be repackaged / redistributed by other companies. The whole point of UserLinux is that it is supported by a web of companies.
  • Nothing new here (Score:5, Informative)

    by TrentC (11023) on Sunday February 01, 2004 @12:33PM (#8151127) Homepage

    This is just a rehash of what Bruce Perens has been saying all along [slashdot.org]; even though UserLinux's standard GUI desktop environment will be GNOME, KDE will still work on it, and will be supported on demand for customers who want it.

    I already have a customer asking for Perens LLC to provide commercial support for KDE on the UserLinux platform. [emphasis mine] And we will do so, even though KDE is not the chosen GUI of the UserLinux project. This is an option for any UserLinux service provider.

    So really, nothing has changed.

    Jay (=

    • by StormReaver (59959) on Sunday February 01, 2004 @12:44PM (#8151202)
      "So really, nothing has changed."

      Something has changed. This customer will not have to go out of his way to get Qt/KDE onto his systems, as Perens LLC will make sure that they are preloaded.

      We all should be painfully aware of the power of preloads vs. the weakness of non-preloads. All desktop systems should be have both GNOME and KDE preloaded and ready, as neither desktop has a lock on desirable applications, and both desktops have higly useful applications.

      The only predictable result of not doing so is a large segment of somewhat pissed users who will claim that Linux is hard because it makes users work too hard to get the basic libraries in place for the applications they want to run.
      • Re:Nothing new here (Score:3, Informative)

        by LarryRiedel (141315)
        "So really, nothing has changed."
        Something has changed. This customer will not have to go out of his way to get Qt/KDE onto his systems, as Perens LLC will make sure that they are preloaded.

        I do not see anything in the referenced message which states, implies, or even remotely suggests that Perens LLC will make sure that Qt or KDE is preloaded anywhere. Where did he say that?

        Larry

      • Re:Nothing new here (Score:5, Informative)

        by TrentC (11023) on Sunday February 01, 2004 @01:35PM (#8151519) Homepage
        You seem to be confusing "Bruce Perens notes that he has a customer who wants a UserLinux system with KDE, which he will provide" with "UserLinux will offer both GNOME by default and KDE as an option".

        This is not a change for the UserLinux project. GNOME is still the only officially supported desktop environment for the project, and Perens has said all along that providers using UserLinux can customize the distro however their customers want.

        Jay (=
        • As Perens LLC pretty much *is* the UL project at this point, I'd say it is a significant change. At the very least, it is a big change in blowing holes all over Bruce's previous rationales for excluding KDE.
          • "As Perens LLC pretty much *is* the UL project at this point, I'd say it is a significant change."

            You don't get it, do you? Perens LLC is *one* UL service provider, and it is not supposed to remain the only one. Perens LLC has the resources to support KDE, and a customer incentive to do so. There is no guarantee that another service provider can say the same.
            • No, I do get it Mr. Ramsey. Perens LLC is Bruce Perens company. The founder of UL. He now has the resources to support KDE, but a little while ago he claimed he didn't. When other UL service providers come along, if they ever do, they can support KDE or not. I see no reason to assume that all future service providers must support all of base UL. In fact, what if a future service provider decides he doesn't have the resources to support the default UL desktop when all his customers are clamoring for KD
              • I just have to ask:

                How would this be any different than a service provider supporting only certain distributions? And if that's the case, why are you getting so bent out of shape that he once said he couldn't support KDE and now he's willing to for a customer (since you yourself have said that Perens LLC is basically UL)?
                Honestly, with the number of postings you've done on this subject - today alone - I can't help but wonder what your agenda is.

                • I'm not bent out of shape. I've been off the UL list for a long time. Bruce can do whatever he likes. I just saw this come across /. today and noted that Bruce is changing his tune once again. The rest of my comments have mostly been responses to wrong headed or down right misinformed claptrap about what has been said VS what is being said now.
    • Bullshit. Bruce has said that he excluded KDE because of the vast difficulty of supporting both. He's also said that Qt can't support a cottage industry of commercial development. Now, his own customers are clamoring for KDE/Qt which nullifies both of these.
      • Look. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by IANAAC (692242)
        He said he has a customer asking for KDE. That's hardly clamoring for KDE/Qt (and not at all what he said).

        That said, I believe that both should be offered from the get-go.

        • Yes, that is what he has said in this particular email. But, if you'd monitor UL list you'll note that several commercial entities have asked or argued for KDE's inclusion into UL. One of them has formally approached Bruce and convinced him to change his mind. Still, others have been clamoring for KDE/Qt's inclusion into UL.
        • Perhaps he beleive that when launching a new distro one should observe KISS. This doesn't mean that you can't be hired to include more. More money allows for extra hands.
    • I don't think Bruce became wise. A UserLinux without KDE, that sounds really silly. UserLinux is VAPOr ware. But Skolelinux provides almost everything that UserLinux will probably support. I think Bruce shall rather concentrate his forced on the fight against software patents. this may be more useful. Gnome may be okay for me, but it is not suitable for users. KDE.org is still the more advanced DE.
  • by mjrauhal (144713) on Sunday February 01, 2004 @12:34PM (#8151135) Homepage


    This is not about UserLinux including KDE
    or supporting it. This is about Perens LLC offering
    support for UserLinux with KDE added on for paying
    customers. Perens has always maintained
    that this is an option for any support provider,
    as any support provider may offer support for,
    say, UserLinux with MySQL added on.




    This also means that a service provider supporting UserLinux
    does not have to support KDE (or MySQL for that
    matter) to live up to their advertising.

    • Finally someone understands what "Open Source" means.

      If Bruce won't include KDE with UL, that does not mean that other people cannot do so.

      All that this article is saying is that a CUSTOMER will be PAYING Bruce to do some ADDITIONAL work for that customer that is above and beyond what you get with stock UL.

      And there was never ANYTHING said about UL that would have prevented anyone else from doing the same thing for any other customer.
  • by manyoso (260664)
    ... because that's what his customers are asking for.

    It was stupid not to in the first place.

    Bruce's decisions about UL and the exclusion of anything Qt has undergone numerous transformations. First, it was because Qt couldn't produce a 'cottage industry' of commercial support. When this was pointed out to be demonstrably false, Bruce retreated into the, 'but Qt isn't free' argument... knowingly choosing to obfuscate the old 'Free (libre) VS free (gratis) canard of the community. When Free Software dev
    • by Pentagram (40862) on Sunday February 01, 2004 @01:15PM (#8151400) Homepage
      So he's listened to his critics, considered the arguments, changed his mind to come around to your point of view and you're flaming him anyway? That's not exactly the best way to gain future converts.
      • by Anonymous Coward
        Ahhh..but that's the point. He has never listened to people about KDE and his pet project.

        However, now a customer has asked for it, he is willing to consider it.

        It is always useful to look at peoples actions to understand their attitudes.

        Bruce's prejudice towards KDE does not bode well for future co-operation with KDE users/developers.
      • by Axoiv (747887)
        But it gives a hint to what kind of guy this Bruce really is...
      • by manyoso (260664)
        If pointing out the facts about Bruce's ill-considered choice to exclude KDE is 'flaming'... and Bruce has come around as a result of bumping head first into reality, not as a result of listening to a critique of his erroneous reasoning and then abandoning that reasoning.
    • Bruce retreated into the, 'but Qt isn't free' argument

      When has he ever said Qt isn't free? There were some ruffled feathers over the QPL and the "Open Patch" definition. Richard Stallman sent a baffling message about "forgiving" KDE. Otherwise, Qt/X11 has been as free as it ever will be since its GPL release in 2000.

      Bruce doesn't like it that you can't use Qt in proprietary applications without paying Trolltech. (After all, why should he be a Trolltech salesman?) Richard Stallman isn't thrilled that you

      • When has he ever said Qt isn't free?

        Try here for one. [userlinux.com]

        Bruce was replying to my email where I pointed out that Qt would help prevent the very problems the UL manifesto was written for. Bruce replied stating that, sorry, he was interested in '100% free software'.

        Several times Bruce chose to obfuscate the old 'Free VS free' canard and as a result he has a bunch of ill-informed anti-Qt trolls roaming his list. Check the list.
    • by khasim (1285) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Sunday February 01, 2004 @02:19PM (#8151846)
      His COMPANY is willing to provide KDE on UL for a PAYING CUSTOMER.

      He is NOT saying that KDE will be included with UL.

      He never said that KDE could NOT support a "cottege industry". What he had said was that he wanted to give anyone setting up a "cottege industry" the option to do so without having to pay any license fees to anyone.

      He never said that QT wasn't free. He said that, in this instance, he wanted the LGPL instead of the GPL. Again, this is for his "cottege industry".

      He has still NOT changed his choice to limit the software included in UL. He still isn't including KDE, but his company will add it on FOR A PRICE.

      Hey, if you don't like UL, then don't use it. If it was based on poor choices, then it will fail.

      For my part, seeing that Bruce ALREADY has a PAYING CUSTOMER lined up for his company, it seems he has made the correct choice. Bruce will have credibility amongst the people who use UL. I'm sure he doesn't lose any sleep over what other people think.
      • You are right on some points and grossly misinformed on others.

        Bruce did say that Qt wasn't 100% free. He did say that Qt couldn't support a cottage industry for commercial developers. Check up-thread for links to Bruce saying these *very* things.
        • I do see Bruce talking about how he would like a "cottage industry" to write apps for UserLinux.

          But I do not see anywhere where he says that QT could not support this.
  • by vpscolo (737900) on Sunday February 01, 2004 @12:48PM (#8151226) Homepage
    ..wants something that works and is supported. As both KDE and Gnome are supported thats a good thing

    Rus
  • by iksrazal_br (614172) on Sunday February 01, 2004 @12:53PM (#8151256) Homepage
    I'm confused. Perens prefers not to include KDE because they have a lgpl strategy to make money, yet userlinux will charge money to include it. WTF?

    Ignore KDE and I ignore userlinux, its that simple.

    • #1. UL will not include KDE.

      #2. UL will be based upon Debian.

      #3. Because UL is based upon Debian, it will be very easy to add KDE packages.

      #4. Some companies will want to pay for support to get what they want.

      You've been stuck in the Windows world for too long. In a truly competitive market, 3rd parties would be able to package the OS to meet the customer's requirements. Bruce's company (not UserLinux) is offering that service, for a price.
  • by fm6 (162816) on Sunday February 01, 2004 @12:57PM (#8151275) Homepage Journal
    ...if UserLinux is ever more than VaporWare [userlinux.com].
    • ...if UserLinux is ever more than VaporWare.

      If you're claiming it's vaporware, why are you linking to an article with instructions on how to install the (vaporous) UserLinux on top of an existing Debian unstable system?

      UserLinux will have its own install CDs when the next stable release of Debian ("sarge") is released, as UserLinux plans to use Debian's new installer.

      Jay (=
      • It's Vaporware if the product exists only in the minds of its promoters. In this case the product is supposed to be a Linux distro that lacks the cost-of-ownership issues of existing Linux distros. A tenative package list that "sledge-hammers" on top of an existing distro is not even close to that product. It's just a demo of what the product might look like.

        I suppose the project is too new to expect much. But what effort they have done seems to have a discouragingly high ratio of High Concept Brainstormin

  • To many toolkits! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BillyBlaze (746775) <tomfelker@gmail.com> on Sunday February 01, 2004 @01:07PM (#8151346)
    UserLinux is showing us that it's not yet possible to make a Linux distro with fewer than two GUI toolkits. Actually more, when you figure in FLTK, Motif, XAW, XUL, FOX and so on. This wastes disk space, memory, and developer time, and the end result is an inconsistent GUI with no single place to change the look-n-feel.

    I think what Linux on the Desktop needs is something just like X, but with server-side widget-drawing and window management code. The client-server design is what makes X great, and should be kept. But with a default widget set, there'd be one place to change fonts, window decorations, colors, etc. And there'd be less repetition.

    It wouldn't be inflexible. A good X replacemnt would have an X-server client so that X programs could run as part of it. So it would still be easy to use your own toolkit if you really wanted to. And the server would have a plugin system to allow a wide range of widget and window styles.

    At the moment, I run KDE. I suppose X's architecture is better than Windows's putting everything in kernel-space, but it still pains me. I can't wait until I can easily run something like PicoGUI or Fresco on my desktop.

    • Um, you're completely wrong. What significant apps really use FLTK, Motif, XAW, etc? You can even avoid XUL if you use a program like Epiphany. For most practical purposes, GTK+ and Qt are the only toolkits that matter, especially now that OpenOffice is being ported to native toolkits.

      Oh, and note, the situation isn't any worse than on Windows. Its almost impossible to stick with a single toolkit in Windows, because the major Microsoft apps (Internet Explorer, MS Office, Visual Studio) all use different to
  • I already have a customer asking for Perens LLC to provide commercial
    support for KDE on the UserLinux platform. And we will do so, even
    though KDE is not the chosen GUI of the UserLinux project. This is an
    option for any UserLinux service provider.


    For some reason it makes sense. In a capitalist way Perens will make money by including KDE into Userlinux. Obviously this customer must be worth some support money if he backtracked this quickly.

    However he may have to compete with Novell on this since SuSE is
  • Good news two days before 03.02.2003 - the release day of KDE 3.2.0 :-)
  • by GauteL (29207) on Sunday February 01, 2004 @01:23PM (#8151445)
    There are several KDE-only distributions around (Xandros, Lycoris, Lindows), yet no GNOMErs seem to care all that much.

    The minute someone tries to create a GNOME-only desktop system, like UserLinux, a flock of people (slashbots) go mental about it. What is the point? There is plenty of room for an integrated GNOME-only desktop.

    Choice is good people say, but including both desktop-systems make integration issues a lot more difficult, and resources could be better spent elsewhere.

    Plus if choice is good, then having the choice of a GNOME-only desktop is good. Include KDElibs and Qt, and people can still run their KDE-apps.
    • There are several KDE-only distributions around (Xandros, Lycoris, Lindows), yet no GNOMErs seem to care all that much.

      Xandros and Lindows come with heavily modified KDE desktops. It doesn't make sense for them to heavily modify another desktop in the same way. And IIRC, when Xandros first came out, when it was Corel LinuxOS, there was a minor firestorm over the lack of GNOME. Lycoris at least offers GNOME as an alternative.

      Any distro that doesn't require a desktop of some sort for proper functioning of
    • by morgajel (568462) <slashreader&morgajel,com> on Sunday February 01, 2004 @03:15PM (#8152309) Homepage
      the big deal is that this is supposed to be a unifying representative of the linux community- a professional and polished face to show the world.

      it's not very representational if they don't at lease offer the choice one of the most widely used desktop environments.

      I personally think it will be much more likely to be adopted if KDE is included. I base this off of a personal test I performed. when I switched my wife from windows to linux, I let her try several different DE's to see if she could find one she liked. she ended up choosing KDE because it was the most intuitive for a former windows user. This isn't to say that KDE isn't without it's flaws- far from it. it has lots of little problems that irritate the hell out of me.

      It all comes down to what their main goal is- if they're trying to steal windows marketshare, they need to (sad to say it) emulate windows as much as possible. I'd bet, given the *choice* between kde and gnome, you're average geek might choose gnome... this this isn't about the average geek. it's a out secretaries and librarians, sales reps and architects. Try explaining "middle click" on a 2 button mouse to your grandfather- I had a hard enough time getting people to learn what "right-click" meant. They're gonna choose the path of lease resistance, and if kde is an *OPTION*, they may choose it simply because it looks and feels more like windows

      As you said, Choice is good. But I think "Choice of a ______-only" anything is not a very good choice and will hence go the way of the dodo. It's sorta like getting spending $300 on an Ipod that could only play RealAudio files. userlinux needs every advantage they can get to compete with redhat, windows, and every other distro out there. I think kde *support* would be a great help. I'm not saying to make it the default, just keep include it.

      The reason they'd not be including KDE is because of it's use of QT, so I doubt they'll be including QT, meaning kde-based apps won't run. This pretty much destroys your last comments chance of ever happening

      This whole thing is a convoluted mess and I'll be the first to admit I don't fully understand WTF is going on. I am curious what the chances are of bruce being able to talk trolltech into releasing an lgpl license of QT, but I get the feeling it's very unlikely.

      I'm all for learning so if anyone can help us understand the whole issue, let us know. That being said, back to my gnome workstation.
    • Those distros all offer GNOME libs. UserLinux will not offer kdelibs and Qt at all, and that's the problem!
    • > Include KDElibs and Qt, and people can still run their KDE-apps.

      And this is prevented by Bruce. Look forward to huge applications coming with static Qt library each.
  • The UserLInux group is not a I repaet not supporting KDE..Bruce just outlined hwo an independent Vendor group could support KDE within using UserLinux for their customers..

    UserLinux is still only using GNOME
  • From the discussion it looks like his company is supporting it as a provider not that it is going to be in there as an install default (although if it is in there as an optional install seems unclear).
  • Debian (Score:2, Insightful)

    by magellanic (689252)
    Different Linux distributions exist because they are designed for a different purpose. Trying to augment various, unique features of these well established distributions will inevitably reduce user choice. Surely, creating a standardized, "super-distro" is contrary to open-source philosophy.

    If there is an attempt to create such a distribution, it should at least have a firm base. Support for new hardware is one of the factors preventing Windows users migrating to Linux, such a project should not use a d
  • by StressGuy (472374) on Sunday February 01, 2004 @01:43PM (#8151589)
    I finally had the chance to compare Gnome (2.4) and KDE (3.1.4) head-to-head. While there are things I like about Gnome, I came away feeling that KDE was the better desktop overall. Specifically:
    .
    While I prefer Mozilla as my browser, Konqueror is a good compliment to it as it will render Microsoft specific pages better than Mozilla. Galeon and Epiphany render the same as Mozilla.
    .
    I need to get to my office files via FTP and KDE is not only more intuitive, but I can't even get Nautilus to get to all my files because of the non-standard set up of the server.
    .
    .
    Don't get me wrong, I think Gnome is good and I can even see some people prefering it. In fact, there are some things about Nautilus that I really like. However, KDE better suits my needs right now.

  • A bit sad (Score:3, Interesting)

    by unoengborg (209251) on Sunday February 01, 2004 @01:51PM (#8151649) Homepage
    Not becasuse I don't like KDE, I really do.
    But it's sad to see that they couldn't focus on what I assume they liked the best.

    Now we probably end up with another KDE support fiasco a la Red Hat. It would be much better if people who liked and was good at KDE created pure KDE distros and people who prefered Gnome did Gnome distros.

    It's usually better to download and complie KDE yourself on a Gnome oreinted distro ( I guess the same is true for Gnome on KDE oriented distros)

Some people carve careers, others chisel them.

Working...