Re: [ox-en] OT: KDE
- From: Aidan Delaney <se401011 cs.may.ie>
- Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 17:59:02 +0100
I've done some beta testing for KDE 3 and was running KDE2 (obj prelinked)
for a while. I am now running KDE 3.0.1 on a gentoo linux box (and KDE2 on a
Slackware box). I think KDE is pretty cool - the one thing that stumps me is
how do they get all the different licences to interract ie: does everyone
play by the book or in the reality of software development do OSS/Free
Software developers regard all OSS licenced SW as source to be ripped.
For those of you who don't use KDE, it is based on the QT toolkit (GPL'd from
trolltech.no) and is a tightly coupled desktop environment ie: all the
components work well together, have complementary functionality and a similar
look-and-feel. However some components are released under the BSD and some
under the GPL etc.. I think I read that Noatun is released under the BSD
licence but theres a new stripped down version (can't remember the name I'm
on my KDE 2.2.2 box right now) is released under the LGPL.
It would be an interesting case to show the interactions of SW licences in
the real world. KDE also debunks a myth about OSS either
1) OSS developers don't develop for the masses
2) OSS developers are geeks and like terminals/cryptic programs (IMHO some
well designed terminal progs are easier to use than some GUI's - but I'm
trying to make a point here)
or debunks both.
As in the case of (1) KDE is usable by the average Joe in the street - it may
not be as ingrained into them from kindergarten as M$ SW is (personally I
think governments should only use OSS in schools), but it is quite usable.
In the case of (2) if OSS developers are all terminal junkies, why develop an
easy to use desktop environment?
Microsoft and trustworthy go together about as well as Exxon and sea otters.