Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GNOME Playing Around With New Middle-Click Action

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Thaodan
    replied
    Originally posted by Honton View Post
    KF5 is a pie in the sky for now. And likely to be delayed. Qt4 is dead, KDE is dying. Admit it. Sure in few year KDE might release something new. No one denies that. Worst part is some KDE code goes to Qt, and we all knows what that means. Free code goes non-free. Fail.
    Qt4->Qt5 is not like Qt3->Qt4

    Its more the splitting of KDELibs so that they can be easyer used in other projects.

    Leave a comment:


  • danielnez1
    replied
    Originally posted by Honton View Post
    KF5 is a pie in the sky for now. And likely to be delayed. Qt4 is dead, KDE is dying. Admit it. Sure in few year KDE might release something new. No one denies that. Worst part is some KDE code goes to Qt, and we all knows what that means. Free code goes non-free. Fail.
    Oh dear, you seem to have lost the plot yet again. While I do find it amusing to read your unsubstantiated and delusional rants, perhaps you should think about moving on to another subject to troll about, because going on like a broken record over points you cant even back up or even partially substantiate is getting a little bit boring.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheBlackCat
    replied
    Originally posted by Honton View Post
    Hint: There is a reason to why KDE does not add new features and is full om embarrassing bugs.
    You are a dishonest troll and everyone knows it. It has been explained to you over and over and over and over again that most of the work right now is going into frameworks 5. Continuing to pretend that you don't know this only demonstrates how much of a troll you really are.

    Leave a comment:


  • intellivision
    replied
    Originally posted by Honton View Post
    Well, there is a backlash against FSF for this. However FSF does make a legal binding promise to never commercialize on this. Qt and Unity is a the opposite. They hate the idea of fairness and code staying free so they demand contributor agreements to be signed. THAT is a double standard.

    Gnome fights for true freedom and transperency. KDE and Unity are just puppets for companies hating free software so much they need a back orifice to close up the code.
    Qt and KDE have a legally binding clause with its new parent organisation Digia which states that if there are feature differences between the commercial and LGPL libraries then the source code of both are legally allowed to be distributed with a MIT license, which would ruin any monopolistic commercial venture that they could have with those products, so it provides incentive to keep both in sync.

    And your statement about a backlash against the FSF about copyright assignment is fanciful gibberish. It's done to facilitate the change of licences to later GPL versions which they see as a necessary step in keeping their software free. Would you rather that they had contacted the thousands of developers who had worked on GCC just so they could bump up the license from GPLv2+ to GPLv3+?
    Such distributed arrangements only serve to waste the time of the project managers, time better spent on other ventures.

    Leave a comment:


  • ssam
    replied
    Originally posted by bwat47 View Post
    Yeah, I don't see why they didn't just start based on gnome-fallback. gnome-fallback was far from perfect and not nearly as polished as gnome 2, but it was already all ported to gtk3 and would have been a much easier starting point for MATE. Forking gnome 2 and then removing all the cruft *again* was just silly. I get the feeling forking gnome 2 was a purely emotional reaction from the founders of MATE, and then they soon realized how bad gnome 2 had become under the hood lol. One of the main reason gnome 3 was totally re-written was because the gnome 2 codebase had become an un-maintainable mess.
    because in 2011 the GNOME2 code was the most stable, well tested, feature complete GNOME2 style desktop (obviously). GNOME3 fall back was in no way a drop in replacement. The only problem with the GNOME2 was that you could not install it along side GNOME3, and effectively could not install it into a distro that had GNOME3 in its repositories. There were too many name conflicts.

    the quick practical solution was to do a huge find and replace on the code base, and voila, you have a stable, well tested GNOME2 style desktop that you can run along side GNOME3. (ok there were a few awkward corners and small bugs introduced).

    Now they are porting to GTK3, and can use the work GNOME has already done as a reference. But they can do it without ripping out features at the same time.

    Also if GNOME2 is an unmaintainable mess, that must suck for Redhat. They will be maintaining GNOME2 in RHEL6 for most of the next decade.

    Leave a comment:


  • johnc
    replied
    Originally posted by intellivision View Post
    And there are no more 'embarrassing bugs' in KDE then there are in Gnome, unless you would like to prove otherwise.
    GNOME Shell is one big massive bug.

    Leave a comment:


  • intellivision
    replied
    Originally posted by Honton View Post
    You are right. KDE have so much more code to maintain that they need to patch so much more. Im leaving it up to you to decide whether it is good or bad to have have so many more lines of code to ever fewer contributors. Hint: There is a reason to why KDE does not add new features and is full om embarrassing bugs.


    Gnome is more free than say KDE and Unity because they stand against contributor agreements.
    The FSF uses contributor agreements, yet there's no massive backlash against that. Unless you want to use a double standard, you can't like one and hate the other.

    And there are no more 'embarrassing bugs' in KDE then there are in Gnome, unless you would like to prove otherwise.

    Leave a comment:


  • Delgarde
    replied
    Originally posted by intellivision View Post
    That's debatable, if you're going off contributors Gnome has a higher number but if you're going off commits then KDE blasts Gnome out of the water.
    https://www.ohloh.net/p/compare?proj...oject_1=GNOME#
    Only on the "all time" scale. Look more recently (e.g at the "twelve months" or the charts), and it's pretty much even.

    It's not really a very useful benchmark though, since it depends a lot on the habits of the developers in question - some might commit a thousand line patch once a day, others commit fifty small patches in the same time...

    Leave a comment:


  • Sayswho
    replied
    Originally posted by intellivision View Post
    That's debatable, if you're going off contributors Gnome has a higher number but if you're going off commits then KDE blasts Gnome out of the water.
    Um, I don't know what you mean when you say "blasts Gnome out of the water" since KDE and gnome according to your own link have about the same commits and gnome has even more over the past month:

    12 months

    KDE=52,385 commits
    Gnome=51,356 commits

    30 days

    KDE=3,245 commits
    GNOME=3,409 commits


    It seems like people here use deception and hyperbole to paint such an inaccurate depiction of gnome. If you don't have time to be accurate, why do you have time to comment at all?

    Leave a comment:


  • intellivision
    replied
    Originally posted by Honton View Post
    Why should anything change? Gnome's level of freedom and number of contributor s is higher than any alternative.
    That's debatable, if you're going off contributors Gnome has a higher number but if you're going off commits then KDE blasts Gnome out of the water.
    https://www.ohloh.net/p/compare?proj...oject_1=GNOME#

    And level of freedom is also highly debatable. One could say that Gnome isn't free enough with two reasons, the first being that LGPL doesn't allow static linking without a license change to LGPL compared toolkit that uses a more permissive license such as libagar, and it could also be said that since Gnome allows software to use dynamic linking without a license change that it also isn't free enough as Juce which uses the GPL, which explicitly states that dynamic linking is not permitted unless the application that does so is also licensed under the GPL.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X