What is GNOME for??

What is GNOME for??

Post by Scott Andr » Wed, 15 Jul 1998 04:00:00



What exactly is GNOME for?? I am using KDE and I am very happy with
it.  I know that there has been a lot of questions about the QT
license and that has been ironed out. (At least according to the KDE
web site) Can I still run GTK++ and GNOME apps under KDE??

Do I need GNOME?? If so can I run it with KDE?? Or do I need to run
another windwo manager??

Scott Andrew

 
 
 

What is GNOME for??

Post by Scott Andr » Wed, 15 Jul 1998 04:00:00


What exactly is GNOME for?? I am using KDE and I am very happy with
it.  I know that there has been a lot of questions about the QT
license and that has been ironed out. (At least according to the KDE
web site) Can I still run GTK++ and GNOME apps under KDE??

Do I need GNOME?? If so can I run it with KDE?? Or do I need to run
another windwo manager??

Scott Andrew

 
 
 

What is GNOME for??

Post by Bruce Stephen » Wed, 15 Jul 1998 04:00:00



> What exactly is GNOME for?? I am using KDE and I am very happy with
> it.  I know that there has been a lot of questions about the QT
> license and that has been ironed out. (At least according to the KDE
> web site)

The GNOME developers probably have different technical ideas than the
KDE people (I definitely don't get the impression that the *only*
dispute is the license).  

One aspect of the license has been resolved: it's less likely that the
Qt library will become unavailable (because of the free Qt foundation
or whatever it's called).  That still leaves Qt having a license which
is unacceptable to some people, although if and when Harmony succeeds,
then that'll resolve things completely, as far as I understand it.

Quote:> Can I still run GTK++ and GNOME apps under KDE??

Yes, just as you can run any non-KDE applications.  You may even get
drag&drop one day, since it's likely that both projects will use the
same system.

Quote:> Do I need GNOME?? If so can I run it with KDE?? Or do I need to run
> another windwo manager??

No, KDE should be fine.  GNOME does not have a window manager
(although some specific ones, like icewm, may provide extra
functionality).

You probably don't *need* GNOME.  Look at what applications it has,
and decide whether any of them look useful enough.  I haven't tried
KDE, but I understand its applications tend to be further developed
than GNOME's, but if you count Gimp as a GNOME application (which it
probably isn't; yet, anyway), then you'll probably want that, since
there's nothing similar anywhere else.

 
 
 

What is GNOME for??

Post by Pun Kuan To » Sat, 18 Jul 1998 04:00:00



>What exactly is GNOME for?? I am using KDE and I am very happy with
>it.  I know that there has been a lot of questions about the QT
>license and that has been ironed out. (At least according to the KDE
>web site) Can I still run GTK++ and GNOME apps under KDE??

>Do I need GNOME?? If so can I run it with KDE?? Or do I need to run
>another windwo manager??

>Scott Andrew

GNOME is just a desktop and you need to run it in a Window Manager,
like fvwm2 , Afterstep, etc..
BTW, you can run GNOME in KDE ...
 
 
 

What is GNOME for??

Post by Christopher B. Brow » Sat, 18 Jul 1998 04:00:00




>>What exactly is GNOME for?? I am using KDE and I am very happy with
>>it.  I know that there has been a lot of questions about the QT
>>license and that has been ironed out. (At least according to the KDE
>>web site) Can I still run GTK++ and GNOME apps under KDE??

>>Do I need GNOME?? If so can I run it with KDE?? Or do I need to run
>>another windwo manager??

>GNOME is just a desktop and you need to run it in a Window Manager,
>like fvwm2 , Afterstep, etc..
>BTW, you can run GNOME in KDE ...

This nicely illustrates that there is a quite desperate lack of
understanding of just what GNOME and KDE are intended to be and to provide.

#1.  They may mandate a selection of window managers, but *ARE NOT WINDOW
MANAGERS.*

The fact that people coming from a Microsoft Windows background lack the
understanding of what a window manager *is* muddies matters as there is a
tendancy to mistake GNOME and KDE for being "new window managers."

#2.  They may encourage the use of a particular X GUI library (GTk or Qt),
but *ARE NOT THAT LIBRARY,* and furthermore SHOULD NOT NEED TO MANDATE A
PARTICULAR LIBRARY.

Note that the "politics" and sundry "warfare" has almost all surrounded the
choice of GTk versus Qt.

This is quite unfortunate.

The reason for the pushes towards the libraries are that:

- It's much easier to build a desktop whose interfaces are well supported by
a particular GUI library than it is to build interfaces that are
GUI-independent.

- If applications are to nicely support the "desktop" features, it will
require that they be substantially modified.  It is easiest to argue for
this to take place in conjunction with a move to a new GUI library.

- A move to a single GUI library obviously results in memory savings.

#3.  The thing that the respective "desktops" provide that cannot be
provided otherwise is a programming interface that permits applications to
communicate with one another in standardized fashions.

This represents things like drag'n'drop and other sorts of "direct
communications" between applications.

This is the piece that is both:
- Really crucial, being the purpose of the exercise, and
- Elusive to describe, as you can't necessarily "see" what it does.

There is a need for people to "shut up already" about the library comparison
issue.

Until such time as they (either GNOME or KDE proponents) make it practical
to build Tk apps that drag'n'drop, they have *NOT* created something that is
particularly interoperable.

Thus far, the visible effect is that both groups have tried to convince the
world that their GUI library (point #2) is the best, often vilifying the
other.

--
Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.  
-- Henry Spencer          <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>

 
 
 

What is GNOME for??

Post by Dale Ponti » Sat, 18 Jul 1998 04:00:00




Quote:

> This represents things like drag'n'drop and other sorts of "direct
> communications" between applications.

> This is the piece that is both:
> - Really crucial, being the purpose of the exercise, and
> - Elusive to describe, as you can't necessarily "see" what it does.

> There is a need for people to "shut up already" about the library comparison
> issue.

> Until such time as they (either GNOME or KDE proponents) make it practical
> to build Tk apps that drag'n'drop, they have *NOT* created something that is
> particularly interoperable.

There is nothing to prevent having both QT and GTK installed, I do.

CORBA is (or is supposed to be) at the heart of "direct communications
between applications" of both KDE and GNOME. It should allow many of
the differences between KDE and GNOME to be easily isolated and left
interoperable.

WhyOhWhyOhWhy...

Can't GNOME have a 'KDE-compatibility' lib, and KDE have a 'GNOME-
compatibility' lib. Then those of us who wish can choose one or the
other based on personal preferences, just like we do window managers.
Then we can also use both 'g*' and 'k*' applications, as we wish.

I find the growing quantity of KDE-exclusive and GNOME-exclusive
applications annoying and divisive.

Dale Pontius
(NOT speaking for IBM)

 
 
 

What is GNOME for??

Post by Christopher B. Brow » Sat, 18 Jul 1998 04:00:00





>> Until such time as they (either GNOME or KDE proponents) make it practical
>> to build Tk apps that drag'n'drop, they have *NOT* created something that is
>> particularly interoperable.

>There is nothing to prevent having both QT and GTK installed, I do.

Obviously; I do too.  This shows one of the merits of X, which is that it
doesn't enforce any particular GUI model.  

Quote:>CORBA is (or is supposed to be) at the heart of "direct communications
>between applications" of both KDE and GNOME. It should allow many of
>the differences between KDE and GNOME to be easily isolated and left
>interoperable.

Substantive differences aren't good; if they really are doing different
things, that represents things that can't interoperate.

Aside from that, I surely agree that it is CORBA that people should be
focusing on...

Quote:>Can't GNOME have a 'KDE-compatibility' lib, and KDE have a 'GNOME-
>compatibility' lib. Then those of us who wish can choose one or the
>other based on personal preferences, just like we do window managers.
>Then we can also use both 'g*' and 'k*' applications, as we wish.

>I find the growing quantity of KDE-exclusive and GNOME-exclusive
>applications annoying and divisive.

"Why can't we just get along?"

There appear to be hangers-on near both development groups (rather likely
that aren't actually involved in writing any code) that *want* to be
exclusive, and that thus are directly annoying and divisive.

--
Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.  
-- Henry Spencer          <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>

 
 
 

What is GNOME for??

Post by Matthias Wark » Sat, 18 Jul 1998 04:00:00



> >> Until such time as they (either GNOME or KDE proponents) make it practical
> >> to build Tk apps that drag'n'drop, they have *NOT* created something that is
> >> particularly interoperable.

> >There is nothing to prevent having both QT and GTK installed, I do.

> Obviously; I do too.  This shows one of the merits of X, which is that it
> doesn't enforce any particular GUI model.

> >CORBA is (or is supposed to be) at the heart of "direct communications
> >between applications" of both KDE and GNOME. It should allow many of
> >the differences between KDE and GNOME to be easily isolated and left
> >interoperable.

> Substantive differences aren't good; if they really are doing different
> things, that represents things that can't interoperate.

> Aside from that, I surely agree that it is CORBA that people should be
> focusing on...

> >Can't GNOME have a 'KDE-compatibility' lib, and KDE have a 'GNOME-
> >compatibility' lib. Then those of us who wish can choose one or the
> >other based on personal preferences, just like we do window managers.
> >Then we can also use both 'g*' and 'k*' applications, as we wish.

> >I find the growing quantity of KDE-exclusive and GNOME-exclusive
> >applications annoying and divisive.

I just read at http://www.gnome.org that they intend to make Gnome as
KDE-aware and KDE-friendly as can be without messing with non-GPL stuff
like Qt.

Quote:> "Why can't we just get along?"

> There appear to be hangers-on near both development groups (rather likely
> that aren't actually involved in writing any code) that *want* to be
> exclusive, and that thus are directly annoying and divisive.

--

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GAT/U d-(--) s:- a--- C++(++++)>$ P+(--) L++>++++>$ E++>+++ W++(-) N++

------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
 
 
 

What is GNOME for??

Post by Frampton Steve » Thu, 23 Jul 1998 04:00:00



: I find the growing quantity of KDE-exclusive and GNOME-exclusive
: applications annoying and divisive.

Yeah, same here.  So develop for GNOME, because it is the future of
Linux and X.  KDE is YAWM.

--------------< LINUX: The choice of a GNU generation. >--------------

 
 
 

What is GNOME for??

Post by Michel Catuda » Thu, 23 Jul 1998 04:00:00



> The fact that people coming from a Microsoft Windows background lack the
> understanding of what a window manager *is* muddies matters as there is a
> tendancy to mistake GNOME and KDE for being "new window managers."

I've tried KDE a few months ago and my impressions were that it was
designed for the people coming from Microsoft windows so they wouldn't
find an alien world. Anyone who has been accustomed to windows crashing
will find a home with KDE as it emulates that mode very well. qt is so
bloated that it is much like winblows in many respect.

I've always appreciated my PC under Linux as being very fast. When I
load KDE, the PC virtually stops so it seems. KDE is : "how to quickly
convert your 486/33Mhz to a 33khz 8088". I have yet to see a winblows
program crash as well and as fast as a program under KDE.
KDE may be good for release someday, once they get rid of the bloating,
qt perhaps. Why not use Motif or Lesstif? nowhere near the bloating junk
that qt appears to be.

--
Tired of Windows' rebootive multitasking?
then try Linux's preemptive multitasking
http://www.netonecom.net/~bbcat/
We have software, food, music, news, search, history, electronics and
genealogy pages.

 
 
 

What is GNOME for??

Post by Bernd Paysa » Fri, 24 Jul 1998 04:00:00



> KDE may be good for release someday, once they get rid of the bloating,
> qt perhaps. Why not use Motif or Lesstif? nowhere near the bloating junk
> that qt appears to be.

Bloatif IMHO is as bloated as Qt (libqt takes 1.8M on my machine*, libXm
takes 2.0M). I don't know the reason for this, since my MINOS library is
only 160k large, and has almost every feature of Qt (but it's written in
object oriented Forth instead of C++). I won't answer to any bait like
"this is impossible" or "it can't have the same features". Download it
from my homepage, try the examples, and then tell me which Qt or Motif
features I'm missing (apart from being linkable to C/C++).

*) compiled with egcs. With gcc, it "only" takes 1.2M.

--
Bernd Paysan
"Late answers are wrong answers!"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/

 
 
 

What is GNOME for??

Post by Christopher B. Brow » Fri, 24 Jul 1998 04:00:00



Quote:>Bloatif IMHO is as bloated as Qt (libqt takes 1.8M on my machine*, libXm
>takes 2.0M).
...
>*) compiled with egcs. With gcc, it "only" takes 1.2M.

This unusual "bloatedness" is very probably the result of the substantial
difference between "old GCC" and "new EGCS" of *exception handling.*

G++ winds up, by default, with EGCS, producing exception handling code
that it *couldn't* produce with GCC 2.7.x and earlier versions.  The
exception handling code is quite voluminous, and it is not a great
surprise to hear of it doubling the size of programs.

In short, it's not Qt's fault, and this sort of code overhead is also
not restricted to EGCS.  When I first heard about exception handling
in C++ some years ago, the reports were that it caused binaries to
bloat.
--
"Jedes grosse Unternehmen braucht sein Vietnam, und Microsoft wird
seines mit NT erleben" (Each large company needs its Vietnam, and
Microsoft will experience it with NT...) -- Irving Wladwasky-Berger
(IBM-Vice-President)

 
 
 

What is GNOME for??

Post by Chris Water » Fri, 24 Jul 1998 04:00:00





> > I don't know the reason for this, since my MINOS library is
> > only 160k large, and has almost every feature of Qt (but it's written in
> > object oriented Forth instead of C++). I won't answer to any bait like
> > "this is impossible" or "it can't have the same features". Download it
> > from my homepage, try the examples, and then tell me which Qt or Motif
> > features I'm missing (apart from being linkable to C/C++).
> Hmmmmmm... aren't you forgetting to count a forth runtime? I am just guessing
> here.

Back when I used to use Forth, the compiler, interpreter *and* runtime
all used to fit into about 4k!  I had a nice little minimalist editor
that was less than 1k, but I usually used a larger one that was just
over 2k.  Assembler and de* cost me another 2k or so.  Forth may
be cryptic, but it is *compact*!  Its nice when your whole application
fits in the CPU's primary cache.  More than makes up for the way the
indirect threading tends to defeat the CPU's pipelining features.
--
Chris Waters             |


www.dsp.net/xtifr/ (web) |
 
 
 

1. I am in love with GNU, Linux, Gnome, opensource, and all of it.

I just wanted to write to say how much I love all this GNU software and
Linux and all of it.

I have just installed Gnome 1.0 red-hat latest RPMS and I am
sitting here playing with it. It is so great, I just love it.

Why any one would choose windows over all of this, I have no idea.
last time I booted to windoz was 2 months ago. The more I use GNU/Linux,
the less I find my self booting to windoz.  

I am finding an amazing amount of high quality software on linux,
and as a programmer, I could not think of any reason of why I would
use windows again. I love the Unix shell, the power it gives me, and
everything about it.

I am hooked for life on this Unix way of doing things. I am becomming
addicted to it. I spend 16 hours per day, installing software, building
things, downloading latest stuff from the net, trying this and that,
making notes, finding new software, buying more Unix books, and just
having so much fun.

That is all. I just wanted to say how happy I am now and wanted to share
this with everyone.

Ok, back to linux...

me.

2. Telnet Configuration

3. I am a newish user and need help with a sound card under gnome

4. /kernel: proc: table is full

5. This clone thing...am I stupid, or am I right?

6. Modem installing problems under Linux 6.1

7. HELP - Cannot boot!

8. I am with the following error, when i am running lilo...

9. Am I touchy? Or am I right?

10. Am I seeing IPv5, or am I hallucinating?

11. I am buying an Ultra 5 but am lost in part numbers ....

12. I am in text mode, what browser am I running....