| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
The critics are wrong: KDE 4 doesn't need a fork (ars technica)The critics are wrong: KDE 4 doesn't need a fork (ars technica)Posted Jul 3, 2008 11:37 UTC (Thu) by Janne (guest, #40891)In reply to: The critics are wrong: KDE 4 doesn't need a fork (ars technica) by sbishop Parent article: The critics are wrong: KDE 4 doesn't need a fork (ars technica)
"Its licensing has always been an issue." Yes, because GPL sucks, right? What kind of free software-project uses GPL anyway? "It isn't the default desktop for any of the prominent distributions." OpenSuse, Kubuntu, Slackware, Mandriva...
(Log in to post comments)
The critics are wrong: KDE 4 doesn't need a fork (ars technica) Posted Jul 3, 2008 14:17 UTC (Thu) by sbishop (guest, #33061) [Link] "Yes, because GPL sucks, right? What kind of free software-project uses GPL anyway?" You'll notice that I didn't mention how I feel about it. I simply said that it has always been an issue. It has been beat to death so many times that it has become a hot-button issue even, as you've demonstrated. "OpenSuse, Kubuntu, Slackware, Mandriva..." Let's see. I'd say that Suse qualifies as a prominent distribution, but you referred to _OpenSuse_. Why? Oh, yeah... Kubuntu? Are you trying to prove my point for me? Slackware and Mandriva? I did say "prominent", remember?
The critics are wrong: KDE 4 doesn't need a fork (ars technica) Posted Jul 3, 2008 15:02 UTC (Thu) by Janne (guest, #40891) [Link] "Let's see. I'd say that Suse qualifies as a prominent distribution, but you referred to _OpenSuse_. Why? Oh, yeah..." And why exactly doesn't OpenSuse qualify? It's on second spot on distrowatch, right behind Ubuntu. "Kubuntu? Are you trying to prove my point for me?" Kubuntu is a prominent distro, and it uses KDE. Why doesn't it qualify? Just because you say so? As to Mandriva... It's on spot six on distrowatch. Slackware is very popular among geeks. Why don't they qualify? Again: because you say so?
The critics are wrong: KDE 4 doesn't need a fork (ars technica) Posted Jul 3, 2008 15:55 UTC (Thu) by sbishop (guest, #33061) [Link] Distrowatch? Are you kidding me?! Janne, I would be happy to reason about KDE's long-term prospects with you or anyone else. But I'll need something to work with. I have no interest in a high-emotion, zero-content flame exchange.
The critics are wrong: KDE 4 doesn't need a fork (ars technica) Posted Jul 3, 2008 17:40 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link] From the person who whined ambiguously about licensing and then stated that they were being deliberately obtuse, that's a bit rich. If you don't want flames, don't stand around banging bits of flint together in underwatered woodland.
The critics are wrong: KDE 4 doesn't need a fork (ars technica) Posted Jul 3, 2008 19:13 UTC (Thu) by sbishop (guest, #33061) [Link] I didn't mean to be obtuse, but I see that perhaps I was. Let me try this again. I have never heard of anyone who has chosen KDE over GNOME because Qt is GPLed. However, there have been whole distributions that have gone with GNOME over KDE because Qt is GPLed. For instance, I remember the disappointment of hearing that Bruce Perens had chosen GNOME for UserLinux, way back when. (See http://www.linux.com/articles/33279.) But that hasn't turned out to matter much. ;) Whether or not this is sensible behavior, it happens--to KDE's detriment. And again, what I think doesn't matter one bit. I certainly don't have anything new to say, which is why I only mentioned the whole issue in passing.
|
|
||||||||||||