🚀 go-pugleaf

cbbrowne@news.hex.net (Christopher Browne) writes:

> On Thu, 24 Sep 1998 03:30:28 +1000, Thandor
> <homer_j_simpson@my-dejanews.com> wrote: 
> >Patrick <patrick@howard.genetics.utah.edu> spake thusly:
> >>I'm curious about something.  I like GPL for many things but do not see 
> >>it as a panacea nor as applicable to all software.  My question out of 
> >>curiosity regards id Software and their non-GPL games like Quake and 
> >>Quake II.  Why is noone attacking id Software for not releasing the 
> >>sourcecode to their game?  Or how about attacking Applix for not 
> >>releasing their sourcecode?  Same for Corel.  

I attack !"$|%%$%s like Corel and Id as well. All apps need to be free,
including games. Corel and Id are immoral beings and need to be boycotted.

> >Some people only care that the core OS is free - so they don't mind games
> >like Quake, or office apps like Applix. But KDE is trying to become a core
> >part of the OS, so it gets them worried.
>
I'm not 'some people'.
> 
> People had to write applications "for Windows 3.1." Not for the OS
> (which was MS-DOS, or whatever variant thereof), but for the "Operating
> Environment."  Thus, from both the points of view of applications
> developers and of users, what KDE wants to be is enough *like* an
> operating system as to make those that protest look like CS "purists,"
> disagreeing to make themselves look important.
> 
I'll never write apps for a GUI desktop, be it called kde or w!"|"| doesn't
matter. Good old termcap- or ncurses interfaces are the best.


> In effect, if KDE "succeeds," it is no longer *Linux* (or UNIX, or
> POSIX, or "GNU Systems") that is the target of applications, but rather
> *KDE.* And this gives TrollTech a high level of power over "the Linux
> industry."  And this is what gives people cause for concern.  People
> wonder why Red Hat Software isn't going along with this?  This is
> surely why.
> 
> The Hurd project provides something slightly isomorphic to this (back
> to GNU...); it in effect provides two "layers" of OSes:
> a) There is the base level with the Mach microkernel;
> b) And then the more public services provided by Hurd daemons.
> 
> The "cool thing" about Hurd is that it plans to provide all sorts of
> additional OS capabilities that can be customized whilst the system is
> running.  I'm more than a little skeptical that many people will use
> those additional capabilities very much; that effectively provides a
> "layer" that (not unlike KDE/GNOME) are "not UNIX."  For those that
> want UNIX, or need to interoperate with it, the added stuff may be less
> than helpful... 
> 
> And then there's GNOME.  GNOME doesn't suffer from the Qt issue, where
> there's a major system component that is controlled privately.  Things
> are still not fun and games; while life may be AOK from a licensing
> perspective, the "higher level operating environment" gives us a
> headache that just won't go away. 
> 
> The major issue: GNOME has been suffering from what might be called a
> "lack of stability."
> 
> On the one hand, it's still pretty "alpha" code, and one should not act
> *too* prejudicially towards code that hasn't had the time to get stable. 
> 
> However, and here comes the crux of the problem, GNOME applications have
> to depend on a whole lot of "GNOME components" in the GNOME Desktop
> Environment.  They need such things as ORBit, Gtk, panel, perhaps a
> GNOME-aware wm, and a whole assortment of "GNOME libraries." Real Soon
> Now, add "Baboon" to the list.  I'll bet that, sooner or later, some
> form of OO Database will come along, and that will have to be woven in. 
> 
> This is a complex jumble (jungle?) of stuff.  And the typical GNOME
> application needs the whole bunch of system components.  Which means
> that they're all necessarily quite deeply interwoven.  If one of them
> "breaks," the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.
> 
> I think I'd argue that the whole notion of building an "integrated
> desktop environment" is something of a mistake.  Everyone (amongst some
> crowds) wants "drag'n'drop" (others would call it "drag'n'drool");
> they'd like One True User Interface.   
> 
No, I do not want drag and drop, I want a classical vt100-based interface
with many keystrokes and keybindings, like the good old GNU emacs on a vt100.

   Klaus Schilling