Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||
On the GUI Selection in UserLinux (NewsForge)
Bruce Perens defends his
decision to include GNOME and not KDE in UserLinux, in this NewsForge
article. "We held about a week of discussion on the GUI issue, on
the UserLinux mailing list - about 200 postings. It drowned out all other
work. It was clear from the discussion that while GNOME and KDE each exceed
the other in some areas, when you weigh them all together they are of equal
technical merit. However there is a critical business difference between
the two GUIs: GNOME does not require a royalty in connection with
proprietary software development based upon their SDK. Qt, the widget set
upon which KDE is based, does have a proprietary developer licensing fee
connected with it."
(Log in to post comments)
GPL Posted Dec 16, 2003 13:59 UTC (Tue) by jamienk (subscriber, #1144) [Link] >>You know the issues: software patents, DRM, etc. ... The extent to which our software penetrates the business world will govern our effectiveness in getting the legislative changes we need.<<Let me make sure I get this reasoning: we need to help businesses easily work with UserLinux. This means, eg: * They should be able to build proprietary tools easily and cost-free * They should be able to protect their IP with anti-circumvention technology Then, once they're dependent on our platform, we'll pressure them to lobby to change the laws so that * We can obsolete proprietary systems * We can legally circumvent IP technologies ??
GPL Posted Dec 16, 2003 14:40 UTC (Tue) by elanthis (subscriber, #6227) [Link] Not quite. More like this:* We want them using as much Free Software as possible. But they won't use it exclusively - not yet - so we have to make it easy to mix their current technologies and development methods with Free Software. We at least get our foot in the door. * Once they are using a Free base OS, they are more likely to migrate to other Free technologies, or invest in Free technologies. Not quite sure I agree that it'll work that way, but that's just personal opinion.
GPL Posted Dec 16, 2003 16:33 UTC (Tue) by jamienk (subscriber, #1144) [Link] Suppose, for example, that Adobe makes a UserLinux version of Photoshop with GTK. Suppose that this encourages Time magazine to do their production work on UserLinux.Then, Bruce Perins asks Time to oppose Adobe's DMCA lawsuit against the GIMP developers, because the GIMP folk have circumvented Adobe's new DRM scheme that locks .PSD files without a password and an Adobe private key. Time magazine decides to side with Adobe, who gives them a volume discount. Congress uses the DRM restrictions that Adobe uses to allow Warner Bros to protect their new music/video format, one that they are happy to lisence to UserLinux. Where's our leverage in all this?
GPL Posted Dec 16, 2003 16:48 UTC (Tue) by Zmaj (guest, #17865) [Link] As it happens, Adobe is already using Qt for some products of thePhotoshop line. In fact, many companies are already using Qt (while usage of GTK is completely anecdotal, but do I even need to point that out...). There really aren't any ways around it. If it was about allowing for commercial development, KDE would be the best choice thanks to Qt alone. But then, that it was never about allowing for commercial development is probably not even a question. The utterly sad thing is that some prominent figure of the open source world would willingly shoot Linux in the foot rather than admit their pet choice for a tool just doesn't cut it. This is petty, and quite saddening.
Pressure? Posted Dec 16, 2003 14:54 UTC (Tue) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] And how do you envision this pressure? I just cannot think of anything that would be effective.
On the GUI Selection in UserLinux (NewsForge) Posted Dec 16, 2003 14:12 UTC (Tue) by vblum (subscriber, #1151) [Link] Hm. Two instead of one GUIs may make the difference between profitability or bankruptcy for their service providers.Then again, this was all about providing an open source solution where proprietary providers have built walls before. The strong point of open development is that it makes use of the mind share of a lot more people than just the particular provider of a solution/distro/whatever. Focusing on one instead of two GUIs seems to leave out about half the available mindshare. That is an interesting yet difficult choice. The other thing is that Linux in the Enterprise does not just magically appear. It is brought there by people who have prior experience already. And likely, these will have a KDE or Gnome preference these days - maybe both, but they'll have their favorites. I, personally, prefer KDE, just because I've worked with it for a long time. If I had a voice in a Linux choice in my organisation, I would make the strongest possible stance against a product which excludes KDE - for merely the experience reason. I would not deploy UserLinux for this superficial reason, although the underlying idea seems great to me. Not that my personal decision matters here, I am sorry to bring it up. What I am trying to say is - there will be a lot of people out there for whom a similar reasoning may hold, and that creates a roadblock for UserLinux by design. I would see that as a significant risk. The Debian-KDE manifesto on the issue is probably the best possible response, they'll just do the equivalent with KDE (if they succeed). Which is great, free software still works, but it is also sad to see the old KDE<->Gnome flamewar tear the potential UserLinux Community in half upon birth. I see UserLinux's economic argument, but I think this choice was a bad one nonetheless - it opens up an old rift which invalidates the entire effort for some. On the Qt issue: Qt is GPL'd software. After such a long time, flinging the GPL character in its face is somewhat ironic. Is UserLinux an effort to encourage proprietary software development? The above snippet gives that impression. I am a user, not a developer. And I am not interested in upsetting anyone; sorry, Bruce and others. But, I thought this UserLinux initiative would be a useful thing. Now I realize that, already at the outset, the one choice is made which (a) has divided the community for ages, and (b) leaves me out in the cold. I will just as simply choose another Linux distribution, but maybe it helps if I voice the above concerns anyway. I would rather have UserLinux succeed in a way that makes it a choice for me also. thanks for the effort in any case, V.
On the GUI Selection in UserLinux (NewsForge) Posted Dec 16, 2003 15:02 UTC (Tue) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] Don't worry, I think you are not the intended audience on UserLinux or any enterprise-level distribution. I think plain Debian would suit your needs much better.
On the GUI Selection in UserLinux (NewsForge) Posted Dec 16, 2003 15:10 UTC (Tue) by vblum (subscriber, #1151) [Link] Interesting ... do you know me, then?(Possible, but if you do, let me know what your reasoning is. I was pretty sure that I knew why I am not running Debian - not because I do not like it, but in order to save admin time. Maybe there is a different aspect?)
On the GUI Selection in UserLinux (NewsForge) Posted Dec 16, 2003 16:23 UTC (Tue) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] I mean, UserLinux is probably not for those who have a strong opinion about GUI. Sorry if I was unclear.
On the GUI Selection in UserLinux (NewsForge) Posted Dec 16, 2003 16:49 UTC (Tue) by vblum (subscriber, #1151) [Link] I agree that that may be the intention.This is also my concern, though - I do not believe that anyone who "knows" Linux lives in a bubble, and the Enterprise world lives elsewhere. Those who will, or will not, deploy UserLinux, will have previous exposure and a previous preference. Those that prefer KDE will have a strong incentive for deploying something else. UserLinux may be able to live with that, but its deployment will be significantly affected. --- To make this clearer: I know of a big place where a vote among admins favored a migration of the server infrastructure to Windows, from Unix - simply because they were more comfortable with the GUIs, and didn't really like Unix (which was used before). In my eyes, a hilarious decision, but for the present purposes, my point is: such considerations seem to matter.
On the GUI Selection in UserLinux (NewsForge) Posted Dec 16, 2003 17:11 UTC (Tue) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link] So, are you saying that UserLinux is not for anyone at all? ;-)
On the GUI Selection in UserLinux (NewsForge) Posted Dec 16, 2003 17:49 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Huh ? How the hell you got to this point ? It's for most peoples out there. The ones who do not care if it's GNOME, KDE or yet unknown XYZ. As far as it does job - they'll use it. My sister, for example: as long as 1C book-keeping program works there - it can be used. Does not matter: it's Windows95, Windows XP or Linux with WINE. And creators of 1C book-keeping really dislike situation where they have to support both KParts and Bonobo. They'd like to see support for COM but Ok, Microsoft made it's impossible - they can understand this. But why the hell two alternatives? They can not underood this. One "general" and god knows how many "experimental" ones is Ok - they'll just support "general" thing and will switch to other "general" thing when current will be declared obsolete (COM=>.NET). Two equal ones? It's stupid.
On the GUI Selection in UserLinux (NewsForge) Posted Dec 16, 2003 22:25 UTC (Tue) by dkite (guest, #4577) [Link] What do they want, someone to tell them which to use?Use the best one. All distros will run either right now. Where is the problem? The problem is someone deciding not to include the libraries for one major desktop environment in the product they are marketing. The choice is not the problem. Derek
On the GUI Selection in UserLinux (NewsForge) Posted Dec 16, 2003 19:11 UTC (Tue) by melauer (guest, #2438) [Link] > I mean, UserLinux is probably not for those who have a strong opinion> about GUI. I think the original poster's point is still valid. An awful lot of Linux-using techies _do_ have a preference in GUIs, and they do tend to have a lot of influence when an organization decides to standardize on a Linux distro. An organization's prior Linux experience might have a similar effect. If an organization were mainly using Mandrake (with its KDE emphasis) and Mandrake disappeared for some reason (bankruptcy?) then said organization would probably look for another KDE-centric distro to replace it. By supporting only one GUI, UserLinux knocks itself out of the running as a replacement candidate.
On the GUI Selection in UserLinux (NewsForge) Posted Dec 16, 2003 15:36 UTC (Tue) by hingo (subscriber, #14792) [Link] My feelings exactly. Of course, I already am using a distro I like, so it's not a great loss tome, I just tought the decision was a bit curious. (Altough I don't think anyone has tried this before, so it will be interesting to see where it goes.) When someone asked Bruce: "So, you are choosing python for scripting. How on earth are you even thinking of getting Debian to work without including perl?" he answers that obviously he will have to include perl, it will just not be recommended for developers. When someone then asks: "Well, you are going to include the qt and kde libraries, even if GNOME is the desktop?" he says plain no. When someone explains that he is now planning to exclude more than 50% of great Linux desktop software, some of which don't even have good replacements in GNOME, he says "We can't include Qt because it's GPL." [--Insert comment about irony here--] The decision to choose one favorite in each category and then stick to it is completely understandable, but to completely exclude Qt is totally weird. The given reason that people should be able to develop proprietary stuff for UserLinux doesn't hold, because if he's concerned about that, then he could just omit the Qt header files, but include runtime libraries so that people could use KDE applications (like KDevelop, with which they could then develop their proprietary apps). It's obvious that Bruce's dislike of KDE is of historical and emotional reasons. In fact, all this almost makes me wonder wether he has ever even used GNOME or KDE. ("Desktop Environment? Isn't that what Emacs is...") Nevertheless I respect Bruce and what he's trying to do. (And even more for the many things he has done!) If someone is going to be happy with what he's doing, great! If this turns out to be a disastreous decision, then the KDE-Debian alliance will have saved the UserLinux before we even notice, and by next year nobody will even remember that we had this argument. (I would actually be ready to bet on the latter, based on the fact that all of the distributions that Bruce mentions in his white paper either are KDE only (most), or have KDE as their first desktop (Mandrake).) Hmm... Bruce asked not to continue this discussion on the mailing list anymore, but who's to say LWN couldn't be an after party :-) Sorry if I'm fanning the flames, don't take this stuff too seriously! henrik
On the GUI Selection in UserLinux (NewsForge) Posted Dec 16, 2003 14:25 UTC (Tue) by arcticwolf (guest, #8341) [Link] I think that's actually rather ironical - GNOME, which is a GNU project, is chosen over KDE because it is more convenient for proprietary software vendors...
On the GUI Selection in UserLinux (NewsForge) Posted Dec 16, 2003 14:28 UTC (Tue) by icc (guest, #9514) [Link] Isn't Qt also released under GPL?
On the GUI Selection in UserLinux (NewsForge) Posted Dec 16, 2003 14:33 UTC (Tue) by trutkin (guest, #3919) [Link] Only for projects that are themselves GPLd. If the source is closed, the developer must pay afee to use QT.
On the GUI Selection in UserLinux (NewsForge) Posted Dec 16, 2003 15:40 UTC (Tue) by hingo (subscriber, #14792) [Link] Just to make it clear, this is a GPL feature, it has nothing to do with Qt itself. (AltoughTrolltech has built it's bisnesmodel upon this GPL feature, yes. But it's still a GPL feature.) In fact, it looks like this policy by Bruce will also exclude GNU readline from UserLinux and probably lot's of other stuff too. henrik
On the GUI Selection in UserLinux (NewsForge) Posted Dec 16, 2003 16:02 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] GNU Readline would remain in Debian and would be installable with a button-press, like KDE and any of the other 13,000 Debian packages. But it doesn't belong on a list of libraries that proprietary developers should use. And it would be a really good idea for us to create such a list, rather than let those developers walk through a mine-field on their own :-)It's pretty moot, since there is also a non-GPL readline facility. Bruce
On the GUI Selection in UserLinux (NewsForge) Posted Dec 16, 2003 18:21 UTC (Tue) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] A list of proprietary-compatible libraries could be useful for avoiding legal trouble, but while aiming for this goal, please don't put any barriers in the way of Free Software development.
On the GUI Selection in UserLinux (NewsForge) Posted Dec 17, 2003 9:03 UTC (Wed) by hingo (subscriber, #14792) [Link] Now that you say it, I remember hearing about other readline options. It's just that GNUreadline has always been rms' classic example of a GPL'd library. (So it seems that I, at least, have been successfully brainwashed.:-) And the point I was trying to make, was that there might be other libraries that are GPL too. Anyway, I side with coriordan here (I think, I don't want to put words in his mouth) in that there is a difference in providing runtime libraries, so that users can install and run KDE based apps like K3B and providing header files (found in *-devel*.rpm packages at least in Mandrake). The header files could be absent, found in Debian, or simply present but listed in a "these libraries are for gpl development only" like coriordan suggested. Or you could have their debs include a warning, that APT would display when someone installs them, saying something like: "The creators of UserLinux would like to make you aware of the fact, that you are now installing development files for the Qt-library. Since this library is licensed under the GPL, any program that you create and distribute that uses this library, would also have to be distributed with the same terms. This includes free availability of the source code of your program." Whatever you do, I just hope nobody goes as far as to suggest that UserLinux will come with a "non-free" repository, where all GPL libraries can be found :-) henrik
On the GUI Selection in UserLinux (NewsForge) Posted Dec 16, 2003 14:36 UTC (Tue) by jamienk (subscriber, #1144) [Link] GTK has an LGPL lisence, while QT is GPL. Ditto PostgreSQL (BSD) and mySQL (GPL). This means that you can make a proprietary product with GTK or PostgreSQL code. You can also make a proprietary product with QT or mySQL because the copyright holders of those code-bases (TrollTech and MySQL AB) are willing to sell the right to use the code in non-GPL ways.Bruce argues that it is important to allow programmers the right to sell proprietary software that fits in with UserLinux at no cost to them.
On the GUI Selection in UserLinux (NewsForge) Posted Dec 16, 2003 14:41 UTC (Tue) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] Yes. And it's also available under a proprietary license for a fee from trolltech.GNOME libaries are released under the LGPL, so you can keep your application code proprietary, but you must release any changes to the library under the LGPL. So proprietary and Free Software apps can be written for both, but Qt has a financial disincentive for writing proprietary apps. On the other hand, the GNOME library development is controlled by the GNOME community, while Qt development is controlled by TrollTech. Also, TrollTech produce some exclusively proprietary code, such as Qt for MS Windows (IIRC), this creates a disincentive for people to port the Free Qt to MS Windows. On the other hand, the Gtk+ developers don't do much work on the MS windows port of Gtk+, so Qt has become more cross-platform. On the other hand, who cares about MS Windows. (the argument goes back, and forth, and back, and forth...) Bruce, good decision, don't let the flames eat up too much of your time.
On the GUI Selection in UserLinux (NewsForge) Posted Dec 16, 2003 15:05 UTC (Tue) by vblum (subscriber, #1151) [Link] You are saying that it is a good thing that Gtk allows proprietary development while it is a bad thing that Qt has a proprietary version.You know, I have followed this Gtk vs. Qt war for years, and my impression is that here the decision for Gtk was there first because someone has always liked it better, and then a reasoning was found which justifies its use. I am not saying that either one should be preferred, but I am tired of hearing "Gtk is more free for reason XXX" - especially if XXX="facilitates proprietary development" this time. That is the most hilarious turn of events I have ever seen in this debate. The economic reason for making a choice I can see, although I disagree. The philosophical reason - wow! --- Incidentally, Trolltech controls Qt as much as Ssh Inc controls ssh - not. The only reason that their version of Qt has support from others is because they work with their community. The minute they start working against it, there will be a fork. Like OpenSSH.
On the GUI Selection in UserLinux (NewsForge) Posted Dec 16, 2003 16:45 UTC (Tue) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] You are saying that it is a good thing that Gtk allows proprietary developmentno? I'm not sure where you got that impression. I said that both permit proprietary application development, and in alternating pro-kde/pro-gnome sentences I pointed out that Qt had a dissincentive for writing proprietary apps, while GNOME had community ownership. I also made no claim as to which is more free.
Ok. Posted Dec 17, 2003 11:40 UTC (Wed) by vblum (subscriber, #1151) [Link] Yep, sorry, I misread, I shouldn't have attributed that to you. Thanks for pointing that out.
On the GUI Selection in UserLinux (NewsForge) Posted Dec 18, 2003 3:16 UTC (Thu) by mdekkers (guest, #85) [Link] Personally, I have been lurking on the UL list for some time, and find the whole argument silly, petty and is keeping me away from investing any serious personal time in the development or progress of UL. As you say, the argument goes back and forth, and has little merit initself, since all points are moot.I do, however, wish to ask you two things: First of all, I do not understand how it can be bad for TrollTech to on the one hand push people to GPL-based development (thus promoting more open source software development), while on te other hand asking for some money if you intend to go ahead with commercial/proprietary development - after why should they provide you stuff for free that you will reap direct financial gain from? The kinds of organisations and ISV's you will be targetting with an Enterprise distro wouldn't balk at paying some money for their development tools. Secondly, you seem to be taken aback by the fact that Trooltech is a commercial development organisation, where as GNOME is a "community" -- did you see the election results of the GNOME foundation? that is chock-a-block with heavy duty commercial interests, most of whom have shown some a serious knack for proprietary shenanigans in the past. How is that different, essentially, from Trolltech?
On the GUI Selection in UserLinux (NewsForge) Posted Dec 16, 2003 16:42 UTC (Tue) by dkite (guest, #4577) [Link] > Qt has a financial disincentive for writing proprietary appsI've always considered that a feature. The core engine of growth behind free software is it's ability to attract contributors. The GPL is the key, since it requires a contribution. Users will follow due to the price and results, and someone's marketing if they want. I really don't get it. Why should I, or anyone else contribute to a project whose goal is to attract proprietary software? At least the kernel developers held their noses with binary modules. A necessary evil at best, with no consideration when changing interfaces, etc. But now its a selling point? I'm very confused. Derek
On the GUI Selection in UserLinux (NewsForge) Posted Dec 16, 2003 15:10 UTC (Tue) by rakoch (guest, #4666) [Link] Is it really such an issue? If a company develops an inhouse product theycan as well use GPL libs, can't they? I am doing that all the time. Am I violating the GPL? If such an application happened to be a GUI app that needed to be run on every trader desktop in my bank, would the GPL require me to bother them with the sources? Not as I understand the GPL. Or could a user force his organization to give him the sources to take them home? -Rudiger
On the GUI Selection in UserLinux (NewsForge) Posted Dec 16, 2003 18:05 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] User who just use software can not. Admins who install software on user desktops can
On the GUI Selection in UserLinux (NewsForge) Posted Dec 17, 2003 5:37 UTC (Wed) by aleXXX (subscriber, #2742) [Link] If you distribute the binary which links to a GPL'd lib (not LGPL) he has the right to get the sources for the binary from you. And then he can distribute these sources under the GPL (I think).But I don't know whether giving the app to a colleague is already distribution. Bye
On the GUI Selection in UserLinux (NewsForge) Posted Dec 17, 2003 9:12 UTC (Wed) by rakoch (guest, #4666) [Link] The situation is clear for software vendors. If you sell (distribute) aclosed source app you have to purchase a QT license. Frankly I don't think the vendors of our software would care. If the market demanded KDE apps they would simply deliver and pay Trolltech. But when do I distribute software inhouse? Say I install it on a cluster of bigboxes and users access it via remote X I am conforming to the GPL but if I give binaries to admins to install it on workstations I am violating it? It can't be that the mode of software distribution determins whether I am within the GPL or not. Maybe it's more important for enterprises the GTK vs QT war is to know exactly what they can do and what they can't. Another example: Bison will undouptedly be included in UserLinux. Bison output is GPL. What can an enterprise do with it? -Rudiger
On the GUI Selection in UserLinux (NewsForge) Posted Dec 17, 2003 9:32 UTC (Wed) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] From the Bison manual:As of Bison version 1.24, we have changed the distribution terms for `yyparse' to permit using Bison's output in nonfree programs when Bison is generating C code for LALR(1) parsers. Formerly, these parsers could be used only in programs that were free software.
On the GUI Selection in UserLinux (NewsForge) Posted Dec 17, 2003 10:17 UTC (Wed) by rakoch (guest, #4666) [Link] Maybe that was not the best example. But that still doesn't answer thequestion what one can do with GPL ware and what one cannot do for inhouse software. Since enterprises produce huge amounts of inhouse software (definitelly at least an order of magnitude more than proprietary, for sale software) the question is important to corporations. More important that the choice of distribution and the mode of payment. My organization will choose IBM anyway. They always did and will always do that. -Rudiger
On the GUI Selection in UserLinux (NewsForge) Posted Dec 17, 2003 12:50 UTC (Wed) by hingo (subscriber, #14792) [Link] The GPL requirements simply don't apply to inhouse software. It's notdistributed anywhere, it never changes ownership. The fact that Admin X has to install it on 100 or 14 000 PC's doesn't change the fact that it's still company software used on company computers. And of course the company has access to the source code anyway, by definition, because it's inhouse software. So this is not an issue in any way. henrik
On the GUI Selection in UserLinux (NewsForge) Posted Dec 16, 2003 15:22 UTC (Tue) by NerdlyMcGeek (guest, #8453) [Link] Well there goes the neighborhood... Gnome: A lame Frankengui I'm sure this will instill new users with great confidence. Count me out!
On the GUI Selection in UserLinux (NewsForge) Posted Dec 16, 2003 15:25 UTC (Tue) by malor (subscriber, #2973) [Link] Bruce says:"UserLinux is intended to be a system for business people." OK, that's great, but why on earth call it UserLinux then? Shouldn't it be BusinessLinux? Names are important. UserLinux sounds like a Linux distro intended for end users. Someone like my Mom, not someone like HP. Bruce may be right about GNOME being a better solution for business. I will, however, bet nickels to dollars that much of the controversy is because people assume that a distro called UserLinux should be about, well, users, and that's KDE's main orientation. I have assumed ever since the initial announcement that UserLinux might end up being my distro of choice, and I was upset when I heard about KDE's exclusion. Now that I read further, I see I have no reason to be upset, because UserLinux isn't intended for me. It wouldn't surprise me to see the whole project fail because of this fundamental naming problem. Is a distro called UserLinux even going to register on a CIO's radar? BusinessLinux might have. I don't think UserLinux will.
On the GUI Selection in UserLinux (NewsForge) Posted Dec 16, 2003 16:06 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] Why does everyone think that business people are not users?Bruce
On the GUI Selection in UserLinux (NewsForge) Posted Dec 16, 2003 16:26 UTC (Tue) by erwbgy (subscriber, #4104) [Link] All business people who use Linux are users, but not all Linux users arebusiness people. UserLinux is too broad a name because it seems to refer to ALL Linux users. You need a name that refers to your intended audience - BusinessLinux, BusinessUserLinux, (ProprietryLinux ??? :-) etc may be more appropriate. As has been mentioned, many of the flames that you've been getting about your choices are because more experienced Linux users believe that UserLinux is aimed as them rather than at businesses writing proprietary software.
On the GUI Selection in UserLinux (NewsForge) Posted Dec 18, 2003 4:01 UTC (Thu) by davidl (guest, #12156) [Link] Because users are not necessarily the ones who make the decisions. Users... There's a thought. What user and developer acceptance testing have you done for KDE, Gnome and other desktops? Is it their decision, or yours based on some strange proprietary/socialist ideals.
On the GUI Selection in UserLinux (NewsForge) Posted Dec 16, 2003 16:14 UTC (Tue) by danielpf (subscriber, #4723) [Link] Bruce obviously committed a mistake in excluding KDE. The bestis just to recognize it and move forward.
Back to the dark ages. Posted Dec 16, 2003 16:37 UTC (Tue) by inssomniak (guest, #13130) [Link] I fail to understand what gap UserLinux is trying to fill.If you want to use an OS with lots of proprietary applications and do not want to be confused with too much choice then may I suggest you just pay for your propietary OS? If you are going to blow loads of cash on applications I cannot see the cost of the operating system being an issue. UserLinux is even going to end up being LESS flexible than its propietary cousins. Solaris supports CDE/GNOME/OpenWindows environments and you get KDE on the extras disk. Getting applications from Debian is not the answer. If they are not supported then who is reponsible for fixing stuff when it breaks. I'd love to know what RMS thinks about the whole thing.
Back to the dark ages. Posted Dec 16, 2003 16:59 UTC (Tue) by jamienk (subscriber, #1144) [Link] Suppose a buisness needs a certain proprietary product for now, say Oracle. This is understandable: they already have an investment, a system, staff, a contract, etc.Ergo, Bruce wants Oracle to have an easy time offically "supporting" Linux: ergo UserLinux. But really, we want that business to move AWAY from Oracle. We want to create a competitive product. Ditto for all proprietary -software, -networks, -methods, and -standards. Ultimately, we are headed for a clash with Oracle. Either they change their model (and stop selling proprietary software) or we will try to make a competitive product and get their users to switch.
Back to the dark ages. Posted Dec 16, 2003 17:13 UTC (Tue) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link] I fail to understand what gap UserLinux is trying to fill.If you want to use an OS with lots of proprietary applications and do not want to be confused with too much choice then may I suggest you just pay for your propietary OS? If you are going to blow loads of cash on applications I cannot see the cost of the operating system being an issue. I think the idea is to provide a software platform that allows one to gradually move over to open source/free software applications where possible, and offers the most attractive development platform possible for inhouse development and ISVs in areas where there are no open source/free software applications available. Most businesses use Office and Outlook along with several specialized applications. Office and Outlook aren't so much of a problem anymore, since there are suitable replacements. Its the thousands of specialized applications written inhouse and by ISVs that businesses rely on that are a problem. Its unlikely that the open source/free software community will have the time or motivation to write replacements for these thousands of applications in a reasonable amount of time. Hence, the need for a distro that is "inhouse dev/ISV friendly." As far as being "confused by too many choices", confusion is not really the issue. There's just not a strong business case that can be made for supporting two or more redundant software systems.
Also: MySQL vs. PostgreSQL Posted Dec 16, 2003 17:03 UTC (Tue) by mark625 (guest, #13741) [Link] Last time I checked, Bruce's whitepaper specified MySQL over PostgreSQL, and yet in the quoted article, Bruce says:
This dictates some software choices: GNOME and PostgreSQL rather than KDE and MySQL So, Bruce, have you changed you position on the SQL component of UL to PostgreSQL, or did I just misunderstand the above quote? Cheers, Mark S.
Also: MySQL vs. PostgreSQL Posted Dec 17, 2003 8:47 UTC (Wed) by hingo (subscriber, #14792) [Link] Bruce changed his mind on this one, based on input from the mailing list. Keymotivators were that psql was said to have more features or is otherwise more "enterprise" and also that mysql has the same (alleged) problem that Qt in that it's licensed as "GPL or pay us". henrik
Questions Posted Dec 16, 2003 17:03 UTC (Tue) by ccyoung (subscriber, #16340) [Link] When I heard the cries of anguish about the desktops I admit I was somewhat asympathetic. But MySQL over PostgresQL? Not to demean MySQL - it's a great repository, but hardly a full-fledged database. It's a copy of MS SQL - talk about worshipping pagan gods - and is filled with MSisms, such as "filename" and "FILENAME" are equal (unless you want to call character streams "raw"). Whereas PostgresQL is community developed, follows ANSI standards, and reflects much of what is great about the "movement". To me, as a Linux/database professional, the choice is nuts.But my *real* point is: Why are these schismatic decisions being made? If someone wants a fast repository, or if someone is migrating from Microsoft, she should use MySQL. But how did this get into the business of choosing, anyway? And isn't one of the gee-whiz-cool things about Linux&tc the ability to choose? The idea of an "official" versus a "non-official" is repulsive. If Qt (or *whatever*) needs a development license, why can't you just put a footnote? Just as you (or I) should put a footnote about MySQL. Lastly will someone please explain to me in baby talk why MySQL is "official" and PostgresQL is not? thanks
On the GUI Selection in UserLinux (NewsForge) Posted Dec 16, 2003 18:32 UTC (Tue) by jensend (guest, #1385) [Link] Should have gone with XFCE4 and made (just about) everybody mad instead :) Desktop environments should not be monolithic projects which try to encompass everything. Consistency is important, but it need not come at the expense to both users and developers which comes with either of the major 2 DEs.
All this could be moot... Posted Dec 16, 2003 22:37 UTC (Tue) by kdart (guest, #486) [Link] I have just recently been playing with and learning C# language with Mono. Those guys did a good job with that. I am not a Microsoft fan, but I think they finally did something good with C#. Then the mono guys implemented that, and.... also provide GTK/Gnome bindings for GUI apps with C#. This is GTK's real strength. It is written entirely in more portable C code, and can be more easily bound into a number of language systems libraries. I also use GTK bindings for Python, and it's great. When I looked at C#, I see that the code patterns for C# and Python are similar when constructing GUIs, and thus the API knowledge more easily and painlessly transferrable among different languages. I think this is wonderful. It is, or will be, the first truly universal (across nearly all computer languages and platforms) GUI API. For this reason I believe GTK+/Gnome is the future of GUI development.
All this could be moot... Posted Dec 17, 2003 1:16 UTC (Wed) by boudewijn (subscriber, #14185) [Link] I've heard it often said that it's so much easier to make language bindings forC libraries than for C++ libraries -- but what's the point? Bindings for Qt and KDE for various languages do exist, and they work without problems. I can use Qt from C++, from Java, from Python, with Python being my preferred choice. Ruby, C# or C are all present, too. Objective C appears to be broken. And then there's the kjsembed -- javascript, for who likes that kind of thing. All this means that in the end, there's nothing special about C's easier bindability, the point is moot, because the work has already been done.
All this could be moot... Posted Dec 17, 2003 2:21 UTC (Wed) by pointwood (subscriber, #2814) [Link] Do you think Microsoft will just sit and do nothing if Mono becomes a success? Microsoft do have several softwarepatents on key parts of .NET - that's why I wouldn't dare using Mono.
All this could be moot... Posted Dec 18, 2003 3:22 UTC (Thu) by mdekkers (guest, #85) [Link] Mono is now owned by Novell, (note that it has recently changed from Mono to Mono(tm).) and you can expect there to be a sort of standoff. If Mono would just be Ximian, then MS would probably have trampled all over them. Trampling over Novell is a bit harder. Mind you, the real issues are different.
On the GUI Selection in UserLinux (NewsForge) Posted Dec 17, 2003 6:48 UTC (Wed) by beroul (guest, #13305) [Link] The fact that Qt requires companies to pay to develop proprietary software with it is an advantage that Qt has over GTK+. If you believe that software should be free, then it is absurd to help people write proprietary software using free libraries. At the very least, if companies are going to develop proprietary software using free libraries, they should have to pay for that privilege, thus directly supporting the development of Free Software. Giving them permission to so free of charge is like asking bandits to rob your house.
On the GUI Selection in UserLinux (NewsForge) Posted Dec 17, 2003 14:24 UTC (Wed) by strombrg (guest, #2178) [Link] If you want money to go somewhere, it should go to the FSF or OSDL or something. Not Trolltech. But that really shouldn't be a requirement for proprietary software anyway.
On the GUI Selection in UserLinux (NewsForge) Posted Dec 17, 2003 21:14 UTC (Wed) by dkite (guest, #4577) [Link] HP, IBM, SGI and many others contribute to ODSL. They hire and paydevelopers that produce things that you and I use. Trolltech, SUSE, Redhat, Ximian and many others do the same things. When someone purchases a license from Trolltech, or any of the others, they use that money to pay salaries. Trolltech has produced a library, freely distributed, that is used by one of the large DE's. Why not support them? Just like people purchase distributions to support the companies making them? Trolltech is one of the few companies who has made a viable business proposition out of free software. Yes, free as in GPL. They have contributed as much value to the free software stack as almost anybody. One of the only desktop publishing software for linux, free, is based on QT. One of the better IDE's is based on QT, again freely available. I could go on and on. My question is where are the new applications that we all need for the desktop going to come from if proprietary development is encouraged? Derek
UserKDELinux! Posted Dec 17, 2003 8:14 UTC (Wed) by cwong15 (guest, #3013) [Link] Solution is simple: do a "Mandrake". As soon as UserLinux appears, fork it and include KDE in the alternative distribution. Every problem is an opportunity.
UserKDELinux! Posted Dec 17, 2003 13:19 UTC (Wed) by vblum (subscriber, #1151) [Link] True, and is being done.However, the important thing here is Bruce's invaluable groundwork with support companies, development contracts, QA etc (or at least that's how I understood the initial proposal). All that effort would have to be duplicated for a "UserKDELinux." It can be done, but one may argue whether that duplication of effort (a) will be done by anyone, and (b) was good use of resources in the first place.
The C++ factor Posted Dec 17, 2003 8:18 UTC (Wed) by cwong15 (guest, #3013) [Link] Licensing is not as big an issue for commercial GUI developers as the language. The dominant toolkit for Linux C++ developers is Qt. Eliminate that option and you will eliminate THEM from UserLinux. Buying a license is quite a bit easier for a for-profit company than asking all its developers to switch from C++ or to switch from Qt to another C++ framework.
Why is LGPL better for free software than GPL in this case? Posted Dec 17, 2003 14:38 UTC (Wed) by strombrg (guest, #2178) [Link] Aside from the fact that Trolltech is putting itself in a position that really, -no-one- should have on a fundamental part of a free software system (you want to collect royalties on linux software? Who are you kidding?), there's a strategy proposed by RMS himself some time ago that explains the choice nicely. The point is to get more and more people using free software. For libraries... An LGPL library competes more effectively with a comparable proprietary library than a GPL library. Because businesses aren't going to touch a GPL'd library with a ten foot pole if they can use a proprietary (and no royalty) one instead. But then if you have a unique library, one without a proprietary equivalent, THEN you use GPL. Makes sense, huh? So does Qt have a proprietary equivalent? Obviously. This company called Microsoft happens to offer one. But then, if you give businesses a choice between an LGPL'd GTK+ and Windows, then you're onto something. No stupid fees. No release of their source code unless they choose to at their own pace. Businesses like that. And if they like it enough to migrate some of the stuff, that helps free software. Yes, folks, we do have to coexist with businesses to some extent. Pureplay GPL is (way) ahead of its time (not that Qt is pureplay GPL). EG, I very much like certain kinds of game apps, but Qt is a disincentive for such commercial ports. Similarly, I want a legal DVD player for linux, but Qt is a disincentive for that too. QED.
Pedant Posted Dec 17, 2003 19:23 UTC (Wed) by jensend (guest, #1385) [Link] QED is short for the latin "quod erat demonstrandum" meaning "which was to be demonstrated." I don't think that "I want a legal DVD player for linux" was what you were trying to demonstrate with your argument. Perhaps instead "thus using the LGPL in situations like this is beneficial to the FLOSS community, QED."
|
|||||||||||