KDE v's GNOME
-
I go for GNOME, as a KDE sitting at the bottom of the garden just doesn't look right. ;P Michael Martin Pegasystems Pty Ltd Australia martm@pegasystems.com +61 413-004-018 "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace" - Victor Stone
LOL! :-D
-
Gnome can run KDE applications and vice versa (though not all of them). Its worth noting that Sun appears to have also decided to use Gnome for there default desktop in future version of Solaris. I think they have an article about it on they're web site. Gnome is totally open source using the GTK toolkit whilst QT which KDE uses is developed by a company called Trolltech which I believe is based in Norway.
True, KDE uses QT which is free for use if your app is free to use. If your app is commercial then QT has a license fee/royalty attached. Can't remember which. However, if you are targetting Windows *as well as Linux and Unix*, then QT is clearly the way to go as the GUI only gets written once, provided of course that you write the QT version prior to writing the Windows/Linux/Unix version. Ahem, I've just finished my Windows prog and it doesn't use QT, so I'm up a gum tree without a paddle, or something like that. As to which is better, KDE or Gnome, I've no idea. I haven't looked into it. Cheers Stephen Kellett -- C++/Java/Win NT/Unix variants Memory leaks/corruptions/performance/system problems. UK based. Problems with RSI/WRULD? Contact me for advice.
-
True, KDE uses QT which is free for use if your app is free to use. If your app is commercial then QT has a license fee/royalty attached. Can't remember which. However, if you are targetting Windows *as well as Linux and Unix*, then QT is clearly the way to go as the GUI only gets written once, provided of course that you write the QT version prior to writing the Windows/Linux/Unix version. Ahem, I've just finished my Windows prog and it doesn't use QT, so I'm up a gum tree without a paddle, or something like that. As to which is better, KDE or Gnome, I've no idea. I haven't looked into it. Cheers Stephen Kellett -- C++/Java/Win NT/Unix variants Memory leaks/corruptions/performance/system problems. UK based. Problems with RSI/WRULD? Contact me for advice.
Damn, That would have been so much cooler if I'd said... As to which is better, KDE or Gnome, I've no idea, truth is a three edged sword. :-) Stephen Kellett -- C++/Java/Win NT/Unix variants Memory leaks/corruptions/performance/system problems. UK based. Problems with RSI/WRULD? Contact me for advice.
-
An interesting point of view can be seen in the last editions (September and October) of Dr. Dobb's Journal. Here, in two consecutive articles the merits of KDE and GNOME are inspected from a programmer's point of view. The author (Al Stevens in his 'C Programming' column) especially checks the underlying class libraries and is quite opposed to the quirks done by QT (the underlying class library of KDE). I checked KDE once, since I heard interesting rumours about KDevelop. Quite opposed to *nix things, especially opposed to EMACS and VI, I was astonished to hear from an integrated programming environment with integrated online help, dialog editor and other stuff similar to what we Windows programmers are accustomed to. Back then, it was KDevelop 1.4. This version came close to the visual appearance of MSVC, but failed in a very important aspect - the editor was a ONE source window at a time application - plain SDI. With today's screen estate (I'm sitting in front of a 1600x1024 display), I consider this braindead and unuseable. Hence I ceased my research. KDevelop 2.0 has MDI, finally, but I hadn't had time to evaluate it any further, since my job demands are still in the W2K world and here MSVC is my tool of choice. Whatever, this (KDE/KDevelop) is an interesting development which might finally bring *nix into the desktop development market.
This version came close to the visual appearance of MSVC, but failed in a very important aspect - the editor was a ONE source window at a time application - plain SDI. Indeed, I've met quite a few talented people that insisted on using cough, splutter - vi - the worst editor in the world, after edlin. Single file at a time, or multiple files, but only sequentially, and fully modal interface. Completely unproductive software. But, switch to Emacs, turn on cough, splutter vi mode, and you've a decent multi buffer, fully configurable editor, complete with keystroke compatible vi emulation. I still think thats appalling, but at least its somewhat productive. These days I get to think about the type of people I want to hire. And sure I want bright guys and gals, but I want them productive as well, and by definition, vi isn't. So why do people use this appaling product? Cheers Stephen Kellett -- C++/Java/Win NT/Unix variants Memory leaks/corruptions/performance/system problems. UK based. Problems with RSI/WRULD? Contact me for advice.