New Project: Kool Desktop Environment. Programmers wanted!

1342 views
Skip to first unread message

Matthias Ettrich

unread,
Oct 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/14/96
to

-------------------------------------------
New Project: Kool Desktop Environment (KDE)
-------------------------------------------

Programmers wanted!


Motivation
----------

Unix popularity grows thanks to the free variants, mostly Linux. But still a
consistant, nice looking free desktop-environment is missing. There are
several nice either free or low-priced applications available, so that
Linux/X11 would almost fit everybody needs if we could offer a real GUI.

Of course there are GUI's. There is the Commond Desktop Environment (much
too exansive), Looking Glas (not too expensive but not really the solution),
and several free X-Filemanagers that are almost GUI's. Moxfm for example is
very well done, but unfortunately it is based on Motif. Anyway, the
question is: What is a GUI? What should a GUI be?

First of all, since there are a lot of missunderstandings on this topic,
what is NOT a GUI:

- the X-Window-System is NOT a GUI. It's what its name says: A Window system

- Motif is NOT a GUI. They tried to create a GUI when they made Motif, but
unfortunately they couldn't really agree, so they released Motif as
Widget-Library with a Window-Manager. Much later they completed Motif with
the CDE, but too late, since Windows already runs on the majority of
desktops.

- Window-managers are NOT GUI's. They are (better: should be) small programs
that handle the windows. It's not really the idea to hack a lot of stuff
into them.

IMHO a GUI should offer a complete, graphical environment. It should allow a
users to do his everyday tasks with it, like starting applications, reading
mail, configuring his desktop, editing some files, delete some files, look
at some pictures, etc. All parts must fit together and work together. A
nice button with a nice "Editor"-icon isn't not at all a graphical user
environment if it invokes "xterm -e vi". Maybe you have been disappointed
long time ago too, when you installed X with a nice window manager, clicked
on that beautiful "Help"-Icon ... chrk chrk (the hard disk)...an ugly,
unsuable, weird xman appeared on the desktop :-(


A GUI for endusers
------------------

The idea is NOT to create a GUI for the complete UNIX-system or the
System-Administrator. For that purpose the UNIX-CLI with thousands of tools
and scripting languages is much better. The idea is to create a GUI for an
ENDUSER. Somebody who wants to browse the web with Linux, write some letters
and play some nice games.

I really believed that is even yet possible with Linux until I configured my
girlfriends Box. Well, I didn't notice anymore that I work with lots of
different kind of menues, scrollbars and textwidgets. I already know that
some widgets need to be under the mouse when they should get the keyevents,
some sliders wants the middle mouse for dragging and some textwidgets only
want emacs-bindings and don't understand keys like "pos1" or "end". And
selecting some text is different everywere, too. Even the menues and buttons
(for exampel Xaw, Fvwm, XForms, Motif) behave completely different.

One word to the Athena-Widgets: Although there are a few nice applications
available that uses these "widgets" we should really get rid of them.
Thinking that "Athena is a widget-library" is a similar missunderstanding
like "X is a GUI". Athena is an very old example how widget libraries could
be implemented with Xlib and Xt. It's more or less a online-documentation
for Widget-Set-Programmers, but not a tool for application-programmers.
Unfortunately, the old Unix problem, a so good online-documentation that
people used it for applications.

So one of the major goals is to provide a modern and common look&feel for
all the applications. And this is exactly the reason, why this project is
different from elder attempts.

Since a few weeks a really great new widget library is available free in
source and price for free software development. Check out
http://www.troll.no

The stuff is called "Qt" and is really a revolution in programming X. It's
an almost complete, fully C++ Widget-library that implementes a slightly
improved Motif look and feel, or, switchable during startup, Window95.

The fact that it is done by a company (Troll Tech) is IMO a great advantage.
We have the sources and a superb library, they have beta testers. But they
also spend their WHOLE TIME in improving the library. They also give great
support. That means, Qt is also interesting for commercial applications. A
real alternative to the terrible Motif :) But the greatest pro for Qt is the
way how it is programmed. It's really a very easy-to-use powerfull
C++-library.

Qt is also portable, yet to Windows95/NT, but you do not have to worry about
that. It's very easy to use UNIX/X specific things in programming, so that
porting to NT is hardly possible :-)

I really recommand looking at this library. It has IMO the power to become
the leading library for free software development. And it's a way to escape
the TCL/TK monsters that try to slow down all our processors and eat up our
memory...

It's really time yet to standarize the desktop somewhat. It's nonsense to
load 10 different widgets into memory for the same task.
Imagine this desktop:
- fvwm (own widgets)
- rxvt (own widgets)
- tgif (own widgets)
- xv (own widgets)
- ghostview (athena widgets)
- lyx (xforms widgets)
- xftp (motif widgets)
- textedit (xview widgets)
- arena (own widgets)

One may argue that a usual UNIX-Box has enough memory to handle all these
different kind of widgets. Even if this might be correct, the really
annoying thing is, that all these widgets (menus, buttons, scrollbars, etc.)
behave slightly different. And this isn't only an academic example, I've
really seen such desktops :-}

I know we couldn't get rid of this chaos at once, but my dream is a
coexistance between Motif and Qt.


The Kool Desktop Environment (KDE)
----------------------------------

I don't have the time to do this all alone (also since LyX is my main
project). But a thing like a Desktop Environment can easily be cut into lots
of parts. There is very probably a part for you, too! If you want to learn
some X-programming, why not doing a small, neat project for the KDE? If you
know others who like to programm something, please pretend them from writing
the 1004th tetris games or the 768th minesweeper clone ;-) Think we also
have enough XBiffs yet...

So here is my project list so far. Probably there are even more things to do
that would fit great into the KDE. It's a very open project.


- Panel:

The basic application. Run's as FvwmModule (at the beginning). Offers a
combination between Windows95 and CDE. I think about a small taskbar at
the bottom and a kind of CDE-panel on the top of the screen. The panel has
graphical icon menus on the left (similar to GoodStuff) to launch
applications, 4 buttons in the middle to switch to other virtual desktops
and few icons for often needed applications on the right. There is for
example a mail-icon that also indicates new mail, a wastebasket to open
the delete-folder (that also indicates when it isn't empty and is capable
of drag'n'drop). Maybe a analog clock with date at the very right. Also a
nice special icon for exiting the environment or locking the screen. All
the stuff is completly configurable via GUI. I'm also thinking about
solutions, that only available applications can be installed on the
desktop and that new applications appear on the desktop automatically.

I started to work on this panel, but would of course love some help. There
are also lot of smaller things to do, like a tool to chose a background
pixmap (for each virtual desktop) etc.

Also nice icons are needed!


- Filemanager

Another major application inside the KDE. The idea is not to create a
powerful high-end graphical bash-replacement (like tkdesk tries to be),
but a nice looking easy-to-use filemanager for simple tasks. Simple tasks
are mainly deleting some files, copying some files, copying some files on
the disk, starting applications by clicking on a file (for example
ghostview for postscript files or xli for gifs, etc).

I'm thinking about nice windows, one for each directory, that shows icons
for every file. It should be possible to drag files around (either copy or
move), even between different windows. Another important point is the
support of the floppy-disk, so that mounting/umounting is done
user-transparent.

Dragging of icons should be done in a nice way, that means moving around a
special window (see Qt's xshape example), NOT like xfm or xfilemanager by
setting another monochrome bitmap for the cursor.

So it will also be possible to put files as icons on the desktop. This is
IMO a very nice feature. Since applications are launched by the panel,
it's even clear that icons are real data-objects. With fvwm-1 and the
FvwmFileMgr it wasn't really clear wether an icon is yet a file or an
iconified window.

Drag'n'drop inside a Qt application isn't really difficult.
The filemanager is IMO a very nice and not too time consuming project.
Who wants?


- mail client

A really comfortable mailclient. IMO the most comfortable mailclient for X
is yet XF-Mail. And the author is willing to port it to Qt when the
KDE-project will start! But he asks for some assitance (for example for
coding the small popups, etc.)


- easy texteditor

Very small but important project. An editor that fits the needs of those
who have to edit a textfile once in a month and didn't find the time yet
to learn vi (and don't have the time to wait for x-emacs to start, and
don't have the memory to use a motif-static-nedit, and don't have the
cpu-power and memory to use a tk-monster like tkedit,...)

Unfortunatly the Qt multiline-textwidget isn't available in Qt-1.0, but
Troll-Tech already announced the beta-testing. So the texteditor can be
started in a few weeks, too.


- Terminal

Similar to the CDE terminal program. A kind of xterm with nice menu bar to
set the font, exit, etc. Nice project, get the xterm sources and add a GUI
with Qt!


- Image viewer

The application that will be launced as default from the filemanager for
gifs, jpegs and all this. Well, xv is shareware and really needs quite a
long time for startup. But there is a plain Xlib programm without any
menues or buttons called "xli". Get the sources and make it userfriendly
with Qt!


- Lots of small other tools:

* xdvi with Qt-Gui
* ghostview with Qt-Gui
* xmag with Qt-Gui
* whatever you want


- Hypertext Help System

A complete desktop environment needs a nice hypertext online help. I think
the best choice would be HTML (>= 2.0). So a free Qt-based html-viewer
would be a great idea. It might be possible to use the Arena-sources, but
arena needs very long for startup. Maybe it would be best to start from
scratch. Qt offers excellent functions for dealing with different fonts.
For a help system HTML 2.0 is more than enough, some nice search function
added and that's it. Since it is also possible to convert the obsolete
troff man-pages to HTML, we can also integrate the original UNIX help
system.

BTW: There is a Troll Tech Qt-competition (look at their webpages). The
best application (not only functionallity, but also design counts. Just
porting an existing great application to Qt won't probably be enough :-( )
wins $2000 and a few Qt on NT licenses (worth another $2000). They also
mentioned a browser-project as an example. So a nice HTML-browser in Qt,
ready in Janurary may be worth $4000 (This includes selling the unneeded
NT licenses ;-) )


- Window Manager

At the beginning, the KDE panel will work as an Fvwm-Module. When this is
done, a lot of stuff can be stripped from the bloated fvwm window manager.
We don't need anymore fvwm-menus, icon handling and zillions of
configurable things. We need a small, realiable windowmanager. So maybe
stripping all unncessary stuff from fvwm will make sense in a while. But
this may come very last.


- System Tools

Whatever a user, or you, might need. A graphical passwd comes to my mind.
But probably there are a lot more! Maybe this will lead to a little system
administration tool someday.


- Games

We have yet a nice tetris game (an Qt example program). What is needed is
a nice set of small games like solitaire (please with nice cards that can
be really dragged!). There are several nice card games available for X,
for example xpat2. So why not take the cards from them and write a real
solitaire games, very similar to MS-Solitaire. I really had to install
Wine sometimes just to play solitair, what an overhead! But other games
are needed, too. Take xmris, pacman, etc. add a nice GUI. Or write some
from scratch. Whatever you want :)


- Icons

A set of nice icons. 3D-pixmaps are quite a good start (but why should the
button be inside a pixmap, if we use a toolkit with buttons???)


- Documentation

A documentation project is always a good thing to have. But before we
should clearify how the hypertext help system should look like. We can
then start with documentation pages in the chosen HTML-subset and for
example use arean as help browser. Anyway we need some application to
document first.


- Web-Pages / Ftp Server / Aministration

We need a server for the files and webpages that inform about the state of
the project. Especially what projects are currently worked on and what
projects still wait for somebody to do them. I set up a preliminary
homepage on
http://www-pu.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/users/ettrich
that just contains this posting yet and a few links. I may setup real
webpages for the very beginning but I would be very happy if I could
concentrate on discussion and coding. So if there is someone out there in
the net who likes to design and maintain webpages, here is a job for him
:)


- Discussion

The most important topic :-) If you are interested please
join the mailing list
k...@fiwi02.wiwi.uni-tuebingen.de
Subscribing can be done by sending a mail with in *Body*:
subscribe <your email address>
to
kde-r...@fiwi02.wiwi.uni-tuebingen.de.


- Applications

When the KDE gets widely accepted, new (free) applications will hopefully
be based on Qt, too, to fit with the comfortable and pleasant look and
feel of the desktop.

We may for example port LyX to Qt, so that a comfortable wordprocessor is
available. But that is still in discussion in the LyX Team.

A nice vector-orientated drawing tool would also be fine. Well, Xfig is a
powerful but ugly monster. But there is "tgif", a very powerful, easy to
use but ugly program. The author don't like the idea of adding a Qt GUI
for the menus, icons and scrollbars, since Qt is C++ and he wants to keep
tgif plain C, since on some sites no C++ compiler is available. Well, the
KDE doesn't really aim on these old and weird UNIX boxes (also I think a
g++ is almost everywhere available). But maybe the tgif-author agrees when
somebody else adds a nice GUI to tgif (the sources are free, don't know
wether this is GPL). Since tgif yet implements its own GUI this shouldn't
be too difficult. It's really easy with Qt to access plain Xlib
functionality and functions, so not very much will have to be rewritten.
Also C++ makes it very easy to include plain C code.

What about an easy to use, nice newsreader similar to knews? Could also be
integrated into the KDE. ... and ... and ... and.

So there is a lot of work (and fun) to do! If you are interested, please
join the mailing list. If we get about 20-30 people we could start. And
probably before 24th December the net-community will give itself another
nice and longtime-needed gift.

The stuff will be distributed under the terms of the GPL.

I admit the whole thing sounds a bit like fantasy. But it is very serious
from my side. Everybody I'm talking to in the net would LOVE a somewhat
cleaner desktop. Qt is the chance to realize this. So let us join our rare
sparetime and just do it!

Hopefully looking foward to lots of followups and replies!


Regards,

Matthias Ettrich
(ett...@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de)


BTW: Usually these postings get a lot of answers like "Use a Mac if you want
a GUI, CLI rules!", "I like thousands of different widgets-libraries on my
desktop, if you are too stupid to learn them, you should use windoze", "RAM
prices are so low, I only use static motif programs", "You will never
succeed, so better stop before the beginning", "Why Qt? I prefer
schnurz-purz-widgets with xyz-lisp-shell. GPL! Check it out!", etc. Thanks
for not sending these as followup to this posting :-) I know I'm a
dreamer...

BTW2: You might wonder why I'm so against Tk. Well, I don't like the
philosophy: Tk's doesn't have a textwidget, for example, but a slow
wordprocessor. Same with other widgets. In combination with TCL the programs
become slow and ugly (of course there are exceptions). I didn't yet see any
application that uses Tk from C++ or C, although an API seems to exist.
TCL/TK is very usefull for prototyping. Ideal for example for kernel
configuration. And since Tk looks little similar to Motif, the widgets are
also quite easy to use. But I really don't like any TCL/Tk application to
stay permanantly on the desktop. And Qt is much easier (at least as easy) to
program. Check it out!

BTW3: I don't have any connections to Troll Tech, I just like their product
(look at the sources: really high quality!) and their kind of marketing:
free sourcecode for free software.


Kevin Cabral

unread,
Oct 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/14/96
to

Matthias Ettrich (ett...@ti-ibm03.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de) wrote:

: -------------------------------------------


: New Project: Kool Desktop Environment (KDE)
: -------------------------------------------
:
: Programmers wanted!


: Motivation
: ----------

: Unix popularity grows thanks to the free variants, mostly Linux. But still a
: consistant, nice looking free desktop-environment is missing. There are
: several nice either free or low-priced applications available, so that
: Linux/X11 would almost fit everybody needs if we could offer a real GUI.

Matthias,

I think that nice looking window managers are wonderful, but a
more worthwhile project for programmers in the Linux community would be to
create a FreeCDE system. I personally would much rather have a unified
print and drag-and-drop API than another pretty window manager.

BTW: I hope you will consider porting LyX over to Qt in the future, and I
hope that The Gimp will also join it in moving to more open libraries.

Kevin


nall

unread,
Oct 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/14/96
to

>
> I really believed that is even yet possible with Linux until I configured my
> girlfriends Box.

was 'configuring your girlfriends' "box"' really that traumatic? <grin>

nall.

--
jonathan n. nall na...@cs.duke.edu

they say your eyes are the same color as they always were.
that kind of information just floors me...

http://www.duke.edu/~jnn/mountain_goats/mg.html


G Sumner Hayes

unread,
Oct 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/14/96
to

kca...@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Kevin Cabral) writes:
>
> BTW: I hope you will consider porting LyX over to Qt in the future, and I
> hope that The Gimp will also join it in moving to more open libraries.
>
The Gimp, in new versions, doesn't require Motif; it uses a free
Motif-appearance toolkit written over Xlib only for speed.

I think it's only available to developers, but they say it works
really well and will be the basis of the next release of the Gimp.

TTFN,

Sumner

Steve Dunham

unread,
Oct 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/14/96
to

> kca...@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Kevin Cabral) writes:

There is a copy somewhere on the web site. I like the new widgets,
they look as good as Motif, if not better. The toolkit is called
"gtk", but shouldn't be confused with the "gtk" being created by the
Mosaic developers.

Steve
dun...@gdl.msu.edu


Lars Hofhansl

unread,
Oct 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/14/96
to

Matthias Ettrich wrote:
>
> -------------------------------------------
> New Project: Kool Desktop Environment (KDE)
> -------------------------------------------
>
> Programmers wanted!
>

[...]

> I really recommand looking at this library. It has IMO the power to become
> the leading library for free software development. And it's a way to escape
> the TCL/TK monsters that try to slow down all our processors and eat up our
> memory...
>

[...]

> BTW2: You might wonder why I'm so against Tk. Well, I don't like the
> philosophy: Tk's doesn't have a textwidget, for example, but a slow
> wordprocessor. Same with other widgets. In combination with TCL the programs
> become slow and ugly (of course there are exceptions). I didn't yet see any
> application that uses Tk from C++ or C, although an API seems to exist.
> TCL/TK is very usefull for prototyping. Ideal for example for kernel
> configuration. And since Tk looks little similar to Motif, the widgets are
> also quite easy to use. But I really don't like any TCL/Tk application to
> stay permanantly on the desktop. And Qt is much easier (at least as easy) to
> program. Check it out!
>

Hi,

I just want to give a few comment on that.

Admittedly I'm tired of this TK-Monster-tale!

It's slow when you write the whole application in plain TCL,
but that's not how is was meant to be.

You actually can register C-procedures as TCL-commands
and call them directly from the interpreter (the only
overhead is the command-parsing at runtime).
You can also call evaluate small TCL-Scripts from within
C.

I wrote some middle sized TK-applications for a company using TCL
and TK. I used TCL only to glue (how John Osterhout calls it) my
C-routines together, which made the programs fast, and very
easy to maintain!

I think TCL/TK is one of the most reasonable paradigms for
GUI-devopment... We only miss a really GUI-builder :) !
(The speed has to be improved on windows, which is currently
in progress)

Granted, it's tempting to write the whole application in TCL/TK, and
some guys seem to have misunderstood the whole idea.
But then again, what do you want?
- you can write the whole thing in TCL which is easy but slow
- you can write the main parts in C or C++ and use TCL/TK only
for the GUI and non-time-critical portions, which is still easier
than Motif or QT and about as efficient!

Again, TCL/TK was designed as glue language for C or C++,
if you use it like that, it's the perfect solution!

If I had to vote what development tools to use for KDE, it most
certainly would be TCL/TK (used in an intelligent way...).

It is even worked on a window manager called TKWM,
which is basicly a TCL/TK interpreter with extra commands for
windows management (of course the new commands are written in C).

just my $0.02

Lars

Brian Kimball

unread,
Oct 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/14/96
to Matthias Ettrich

Matthias Ettrich wrote:

> IMHO a GUI should offer a complete, graphical environment. It should allow a
> users to do his everyday tasks with it, like starting applications, reading
> mail, configuring his desktop, editing some files, delete some files, look
> at some pictures, etc. All parts must fit together and work together. A
> nice button with a nice "Editor"-icon isn't not at all a graphical user
> environment if it invokes "xterm -e vi". Maybe you have been disappointed
> long time ago too, when you installed X with a nice window manager, clicked
> on that beautiful "Help"-Icon ... chrk chrk (the hard disk)...an ugly,
> unsuable, weird xman appeared on the desktop :-(

Wow. That brings back memories of my first X experience. <shudder>

> Since a few weeks a really great new widget library is available free in
> source and price for free software development. Check out
> http://www.troll.no

Also check out http://www.mlsoft.com/xml/xml.html for some cool motif
add-ons.
The widget library is free for linux.

I seem to remember people working on the fvwm95 project also doing some
kind of integrated file manager that resembles the win95 file windows.
I think this included possible file-icons on the desktop.

My impression is that a bunch of people just recently realized that the
current linux/X situation really bites and they all decided to start
their own little projects. It would be nice to see people buckle down
and focus on one common project (like the KDE). I think this would add
a lot of value to linux. Good luck dude.

Brian

Greg Howland

unread,
Oct 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/15/96
to Matthias Ettrich

This sounds very similar to the Afterstep project.
Have you considered working with them?

--Greg

Henning Brockfeld

unread,
Oct 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/15/96
to

I don't want to start a new widget war. If someone wants to start a
project like KDE with Qt, it ok. But I think it is a good idea to have
a close look at GNUStep ( http://www.gnustep.org ) before starting.
GNUStep is becoming a clone of the OpenStep API from Next including a
RTF textwidget and Display Postscript.

Henning

--
Henning Brockfeld mailto: Broc...@wigeo.bwl.uni-muenchen.de
Institut f"ur Wirtschaftsgeographie Universit"at M"unchen

http://www.wigeo.bwl.uni-muenchen.de/~hbrock/

James Bailie

unread,
Oct 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/15/96
to

Lars Hofhansl <lhof...@indiana.edu> wrote:

> It is even worked on a window manager called TKWM,
> which is basicly a TCL/TK interpreter with extra commands for
> windows management (of course the new commands are written in C).

Is TKWM still kicking around/maintained? If so, where can I find it?


James Bailie

Linux bigot,
in London, Ontario, Canada
------------------------------------------------


Matthias Ettrich

unread,
Oct 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/15/96
to

nall (na...@spike.cs.duke.edu) wrote:
: >
: > I really believed that is even yet possible with Linux until I configured my
: > girlfriends Box.

: was 'configuring your girlfriends' "box"' really that traumatic? <grin>

yes, unfortunatly :-( I needed several hours and the result isn't as
good as I expected. Anyway she now works with it but she doesn't really
believe my claims anymore that this system could sometime be something
for everybody. Well, one might argue that it's enough if Linux/X11 fits
for me. But as a computer-science student who will maybe end up as a
programmer (who knows) I really would like more marketshare for Unix
so that I will not have to write software for strange other systems.

Don't grin, this could happen to everybody. someday. ;)

Matthias

BTW: But I want a nice environment for myself, too, of course.

: nall.

Matthias Ettrich

unread,
Oct 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/15/96
to

Kevin Cabral (kca...@freenet.columbus.oh.us) wrote:
: Matthias Ettrich (ett...@ti-ibm03.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de) wrote:

: : -------------------------------------------


: : New Project: Kool Desktop Environment (KDE)
: : -------------------------------------------
: :
: : Programmers wanted!


: : Motivation
: : ----------

: : Unix popularity grows thanks to the free variants, mostly Linux. But still a
: : consistant, nice looking free desktop-environment is missing. There are
: : several nice either free or low-priced applications available, so that
: : Linux/X11 would almost fit everybody needs if we could offer a real GUI.

: Matthias,

: I think that nice looking window managers are wonderful, but a
: more worthwhile project for programmers in the Linux community would be to
: create a FreeCDE system. I personally would much rather have a unified
: print and drag-and-drop API than another pretty window manager.

I'm not talking about yet-another window manager. I'm talking about
an Qt-based environment similar to the CDE. Qt yet doesn't have
a drag-and-drop API. I'm not sure when it will come. But of course
this would be a nice project. Join and do that API!
(as a sideeffect and for testing purpose maybe also the filemanager
comes out...)


: BTW: I hope you will consider porting LyX over to Qt in the future, and I


: hope that The Gimp will also join it in moving to more open libraries.

: Kevin

Greets,

Matthias

William P Shaw

unread,
Oct 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/15/96
to

In article <53vkaq$n...@newsserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de>,
Matthias Ettrich <ett...@ti-ibm01.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> wrote:
>nall (na...@spike.cs.duke.edu) wrote:
>: >
>: > I really believed that is even yet possible with Linux until I
>: > configured my girlfriends Box.
>

>: was 'configuring your girlfriends' "box"' really that traumatic? <grin>
>
>yes, unfortunatly :-( I needed several hours and the result isn't as
>good as I expected.

Several hours! If I spent that long working with the 'box' and I
didn't produce the expected result, I'd be sleeping on the front
porch! --Bill.
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++ William Shaw the shaman wps...@pitt.edu ++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Patrice Fortier

unread,
Oct 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/15/96
to

Matthias Ettrich (ett...@ti-ibm01.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de) wrote:
: I'm not talking about yet-another window manager. I'm talking about

: an Qt-based environment similar to the CDE. Qt yet doesn't have
: a drag-and-drop API. I'm not sure when it will come. But of course
: this would be a nice project. Join and do that API!
: (as a sideeffect and for testing purpose maybe also the filemanager
: comes out...)

As far as I can remember Qt is free only for free software development.
So if a company wants to create a product on Linux, she'll have the
choice between:

1. Motif
2. Qt

Since both of them are Commercial products, it'll use Motif (standard).
Even if the Qt API is better...

--
Lokh.

"Famous remarks are very seldom quoted correctly."
- Simeon Strunsky

Linh Dang

unread,
Oct 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/15/96
to

>>>> "Pat" == Patrice Fortier <for...@emi.u-bordeaux.fr> writes:

Pat> Matthias Ettrich (ett...@ti-ibm01.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de)
Pat> wrote: : I'm not talking about yet-another window manager. I'm
Pat> talking about : an Qt-based environment similar to the CDE. Qt
Pat> yet doesn't have : a drag-and-drop API. I'm not sure when it
Pat> will come. But of course : this would be a nice project. Join
Pat> and do that API! : (as a sideeffect and for testing purpose
Pat> maybe also the filemanager : comes out...)

Pat> As far as I can remember Qt is free only for free software
Pat> development. So if a company wants to create a product on
Pat> Linux, she'll have the choice between:

Pat> 1. Motif 2. Qt

Pat> Since both of them are Commercial products, it'll use Motif
Pat> (standard). Even if the Qt API is better...

If their primary target is Linux, I think they would rather use Qt
since they don't have to staticly link the gui lib in. Users can buy
the app and use it with the free Qt shared lib. Look at the problems
StarOffice has with Motif. Last time I checked, Lesstiff is only
source compatible with Motif. So Lesstiff can't solve the problems
Motif-based comercial apps since the only thing u get is a binary.

just my 0.02$

L.D.

--
=====================================================================
Linh Dang Nortel Technology
Member of Scientific Staff Speech Recognition Software
li...@nortel.ca
=====================================================================

Lars Hofhansl

unread,
Oct 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/15/96
to

Hi,

it has not been worked on since TK4.0, and even
this was only an alpha version.

Still it might be a good starting point!

Take a look ant Eric Schenks homepage:
http://www.cs.utoronto.ca/~schenk/

Lars

Lou Ruppert

unread,
Oct 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/15/96
to

In article <gknsp7g...@nortel.ca>,

Linh Dang <li...@nortel.ca> writes:
> Pat> As far as I can remember Qt is free only for free software
> Pat> development. So if a company wants to create a product on
> Pat> Linux, she'll have the choice between:
>
> Pat> 1. Motif 2. Qt
>
> If their primary target is Linux, I think they would rather use Qt
> since they don't have to staticly link the gui lib in. Users can buy
> the app and use it with the free Qt shared lib. Look at the problems
> StarOffice has with Motif. Last time I checked, Lesstiff is only
> source compatible with Motif. So Lesstiff can't solve the problems
> Motif-based comercial apps since the only thing u get is a binary.

True, but if it shares the Motif API then making a Lesstif version
would be no more complex than relinking with lesstif libraries rather
than motif. I think if a common interface were to be made for Linux that
the best interface to use would be Motif. Why? Because there is already
a base of Motif applications out there, such as Netscape and Mosaic, and
Java has a Motif look and feel, at least for the Linux release. If any
other 'standard' were developed, it would have to sit alongside those
applications, which would dash away any hopes of a common look all around.
I don't believe a common interface could ever be completely achieved under
an open system like Linux, but I think the best solution would be to use
Motif/Lesstif.


-Lou
--
Lou Ruppert lrup...@npac.syr.edu
"The Lou Ruppert home page": http://groomlake.npac.syr.edu/~lruppert/
"And the LORD said unto Joshua, Get thee up; wherefore liest thou thus upon
thy face?" -Joshua 7:10


Hallow

unread,
Oct 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/15/96
to Steve Dunham

[Posted and mailed]

In article <m2zq1pk...@dunham.tcimet.net>,


Steve Dunham <dun...@gdl.msu.edu> writes:
>
>> I think it's only available to developers, but they say it works
>> really well and will be the basis of the next release of the Gimp.
>
> There is a copy somewhere on the web site. I like the new widgets,
> they look as good as Motif, if not better. The toolkit is called
> "gtk", but shouldn't be confused with the "gtk" being created by the
> Mosaic developers.

Actually, it is the exact same gtk (gIMP tOOLkIT)! And version 1.0 (at
least that's what I beleive it will be numbered) will remove the need
for motif or xlib (one or the other is required right now).

And it's not really a widget set either. It's kinda wierd. But it's way
faster and smaller than motif, is syntactically similar to programming
for motif (that's why two free formerly motif tools (gimp and mosaic)
are being converted).


Hallow
hal...@hallow.erols.com

>
> Steve
> dun...@gdl.msu.edu
>

Linh Dang

unread,
Oct 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/15/96
to

>>>> "Lou" == Lou Ruppert <lrup...@npac.syr.edu> writes:

Lou> In article <gknsp7g...@nortel.ca>, Linh Dang


Lou> <li...@nortel.ca> writes:
Pat> As far as I can remember Qt is free only for free software
Pat> development. So if a company wants to create a product on
Pat> Linux, she'll have the choice between:
>>
Pat> 1. Motif 2. Qt
>> If their primary target is Linux, I think they would rather use
>> Qt since they don't have to staticly link the gui lib in. Users
>> can buy the app and use it with the free Qt shared lib. Look at
>> the problems StarOffice has with Motif. Last time I checked,
>> Lesstiff is only source compatible with Motif. So Lesstiff can't
>> solve the problems Motif-based comercial apps since the only thing
>> u get is a binary.

Lou> True, but if it shares the Motif API then making a Lesstif
Lou> version would be no more complex than relinking with lesstif
Lou> libraries rather than motif. I think if a common interface were

Very true, indeed!
The question are

how mature is lesstiff ?

under what license will it be ditributed ? GPL, LGPL, ... (can
commercial apps use it ?, btw, we're talking about comercial
softwares, freeware is almost a non-issue).

Don't forget Qt is commercial for commercial software !

Lou> to be made for Linux that the best interface to use would be
Lou> Motif. Why? Because there is already a base of Motif
Lou> applications out there, such as Netscape and Mosaic, and Java
Lou> has a Motif look and feel, at least for the Linux release. If
Lou> any other 'standard' were developed, it would have to sit
Lou> alongside those applications, which would dash away any hopes of
Lou> a common look all around. I don't believe a common interface

This is a non-issue ! Qt has Motif L&F !

Lou> could ever be completely achieved under an open system like
Lou> Linux, but I think the best solution would be to use
Lou> Motif/Lesstif.


Lou> -Lou -- Lou Ruppert lrup...@npac.syr.edu "The Lou Ruppert home
Lou> page": http://groomlake.npac.syr.edu/~lruppert/ "And the LORD
Lou> said unto Joshua, Get thee up; wherefore liest thou thus upon
Lou> thy face?" -Joshua 7:10

Paul Seelig

unread,
Oct 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/15/96
to

In article <326322...@erols.com>,

Greg Howland <g...@erols.com> writes:
> This sounds very similar to the Afterstep project.
>
As to my understanding Afterstep is just about another window manager.
But Matthias' idea is about a desktop environment (can you say CDE?) which is
a whole different thing.

> Have you considered working with them?
>

Read his posting again. He is clearly differentiating a window manager from
a desktop environment. Afterstep is about looks but not functionality and
the KDE is primarily an approach for functionality.

We don't need good looks, but a homogeneous user interface. With all window
managers there is still such a heterogeneous way of handling your programs
that it stinks for the average end user. Afterstep is nice but it doesn't
make usage of an editor like 'vi' very convincable for the average user. And
have you ever seen and used a real NeXT box? That's what is called a GUI with
real functionality! Afterstep is still miles away from that although the
looks seem to be there - but that's all.
Regards, P. Seelig *8^)
--
Paul Seelig pse...@goofy.zdv.uni-mainz.de
African Music Archive - Institute for Ethnology and Africa Studies
Johannes Gutenberg-University - Forum 6 - 55099 Mainz/Germany
Our AMA Homepage in the WWW at http://www.uni-mainz.de/~bender/

Leo Comitale

unread,
Oct 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/15/96
to

In article <540115$d...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,

William P Shaw <wps...@pitt.edu> wrote:
>In article <53vkaq$n...@newsserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de>,
>Matthias Ettrich <ett...@ti-ibm01.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> wrote:
>>nall (na...@spike.cs.duke.edu) wrote:
>>: >
>>: > I really believed that is even yet possible with Linux until I
>>: > configured my girlfriends Box.
>>

>>: was 'configuring your girlfriends' "box"' really that traumatic? <grin>
>>
>>yes, unfortunatly :-( I needed several hours and the result isn't as
>>good as I expected.
>
>Several hours! If I spent that long working with the 'box' and I
>didn't produce the expected result, I'd be sleeping on the front
>porch! --Bill.

I don't think he gets it.

--
Leo Comitale
UofT CPE 9T6+PEY

Eric Vought

unread,
Oct 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/15/96
to

> If I had to vote what development tools to use for KDE, it most
> certainly would be TCL/TK (used in an intelligent way...).
>
> It is even worked on a window manager called TKWM,
> which is basicly a TCL/TK interpreter with extra commands for
> windows management (of course the new commands are written in C).

This would also make configuration extremely easy, provide backwards
compatibility with the X Resource database, and leverage a hell of a lot
of existing code and extensions.

Eric Vought

unread,
Oct 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/15/96
to

> IMHO a GUI should offer a complete, graphical environment. It should allow a
> users to do his everyday tasks with it, like starting applications, reading
> mail, configuring his desktop, editing some files, delete some files, look
> at some pictures, etc. All parts must fit together and work together. A
> nice button with a nice "Editor"-icon isn't not at all a graphical user
> environment if it invokes "xterm -e vi". Maybe you have been disappointed

On the contrary, this is exactly what it should be able to do, only you
should also be able to change it to "xterm -e joe" or "textedit" or
"xemacs" or "KDEEdit" or "crisp", etc. If you do build an environment
like you describe, configurability has to be a part of it. Sure, you
might supply several good programs with it, but you shouldn't lock out
people's ability to use other programs *and* for them to fully replace
your programs. In other words, if every time your GUI wants the user to
edit a file, it pops up KDEEdit, even though the user prefers to and
does use pico everywhere else, that doesn't cut it. If the user wants
pico, the GUI should use pico *everywhere*. If you have a set of key
bindings in the GUI, the user should be able to reconfigure them. Why?
Maybe the user is used to a Macintosh and wants familiar bindings. Maybe
the user is missing a left hand and typing Ctrl-A is a royal pain. This,
by the way, means that reasonable backwards compatibility with other
programs needs to be maintained.

Summary, yes, by all means, build a standard system- it has been done
before (The Andrew Toolkit Springs to mind, as does OpenLook), but it
can be done better. But- allow people to deviate from that standard.
Their reasons may be much better than you think, and you cannot possibly
anticipate the needs of everyone.

Suggestion:
__________

BTW: Have you considered a scrapbook for storing scraps of cut and
pastage, Macintosh style? I hate the Mac interface, but it does have its
points, the scrapbook being one of them. An application that serves as a
clipboard that will store say, the last two or three copy actions would
also be helpful, allowing you to copy to and from the scrapbook as
desired.

One other thing: If you provide toolbars, (I'm sure you will) make a
configuration option where by you can display short text interpretations
(not just balloon help- balloon help is for slightly longer phrases)
either with or *instead of* the icons. I find icons can be a great
source of confusion with new users (just what *does* the picture of the
teddy bear mean?!?). It also helps with people that have low resolution,
monochrome, or crappy monitors where the pictures become unrecognizable.
Additionally some people don't have a lot of memory or a fast video card
(pixmaps take up a tremendous amount of memory in a highly graphical
interface- text takes up a lot less- easier on disk space too and much
easier to internationalize).

Ralph Schleicher

unread,
Oct 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/15/96
to

Matthias Ettrich <ett...@ti-ibm03.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> cited
below with "ME" writes:

ME> IMHO a GUI should offer a complete, graphical environment. It should
ME> allow a users to do his everyday tasks with it, like starting
ME> applications, reading mail, configuring his desktop, editing some
ME> files, delete some files, look at some pictures, etc. All parts
ME> must fit together and work together.

Emacs, man! Emacs! :-)

ME> - Panel:
There are still some keys unbound!
ME> - Filemanager
Dired.
ME> - mail client
Gnus, you can also read News with it!
ME> - easy texteditor
Hell yeah!
ME> - Terminal
Shell mode.
ME> - Image viewer
Say `! display RET' in Dired.
ME> - Hypertext Help System
Texinfo.

--
Ralph * http://www.UL.BaWue.DE/~rs/

GNU -- vivat, crescat, floreat!

Edwin Lim

unread,
Oct 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/16/96
to

In article <32635025...@lrz.uni-muenchen.de>,

Henning Brockfeld <Henning....@lrz.uni-muenchen.de> wrote:
>I don't want to start a new widget war. If someone wants to start a
>project like KDE with Qt, it ok. But I think it is a good idea to have
>a close look at GNUStep ( http://www.gnustep.org ) before starting.
>GNUStep is becoming a clone of the OpenStep API from Next including a
>RTF textwidget and Display Postscript.

I think Henning has a point. Does anyone know what is the advantage
KDE has over GNUstep? KDE sounds like a face lift on some apps. If
that is the case, then it might be a worthwhile attempt. However, if
interoperability (aka drag and drop, OLE, Opendoc, whatever the
recent incarnation is) is desired, perhaps we should seriously look
farther ahead than a face lift. I fear that a face lift of the apps
will generate a lot of excitement that might take too long to complete,
and when it does finish, it would likely be superceded by other stuff
(e.g., CDE) making it look incomplete once again. I bring this up in
light of the uncertain fate that the X+free Unices world is coming to
at the end of the year.

The Unix world (at least the commercial Unix world) is tending towards
CDE+Motif, and soon when the Open Group takes over X, it will be
CDE+Motif+X, integrated (whatever that means). The Open Group has not
made Motif and CDE free, and when X is integrated with Motif and CDE, I
doubt if X will be free as we all know it now. Even if X remains free
and functional stand-alone, the free Unices community will lose much of
its attractive value (sorry, can't think of an appropriate word right
now) due to lack of CDE and Motif, making us look like the outsiders in
a "unified" (commercial) Unix world. Of course, I am sure that
XInside, Metro-X, and others will come up with commercial solutions for
many polular free Unices (some already offer CDE), but those will
most likely come at a dollar price, leave some not so popular free
Unices (or popular free Unices but on uncommon hardware) out in the
cold, and most of all, come with all kinds of strings attached--not
quite the "live free or die" Unix motto.

The Open Group has not announced the fate of X as yet. Since the
maintenance of X is to be handed over at the end of the year, one is
free to speculate what does that mean. Whatever it may be, I think we
should not count on Open Group to be a benevolent entity (it might be,
I don't know.. can anyone clarify this?) on a long term basis. Thus my
suggestion of a new direction in the form of GNUstep.

I am certain most people who have seen a NeXT box will agree that
OPENstep is a more elegant solution than CDE+Motif. It has ground-up
drag and drop (or whatever you prefer to call it), but most important
of all is that the specifications are really open which means that a
free version such as GNUstep can be implemented. Compare that to
CDE+Motif, you have to pay a fees to even get Motif on your box, it is
fat (Qt looks like a much better implementation in many ways, plus
Troll Tech is nice to hackers), CDE needs money as well (am I
correct?), and I would guess that Open Group will not endear itself to
the free Unix community. Money and big players and politics are
involved now, so technology usually take a back seat.

I think I have speculated enough. Anyone else has any other inputs
that more closely correspond to reality? :-) Corrections? Pointers?
Gurus? I think many can benefit from this discussion, don't keep us in
the dark! It would be great if a generally general agreement/concensus
can be arrived at so we all can have a direction to work towards.
Also, follow-up to comp.os.linux.advocacy, where it belongs.

Cheers,
e. (bracing for flame/fireballs/wand of death/etc.)
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
Edwin _Lim_ Aun Whei | U of Calif., Irvine | Never let truth stand in the
el...@dodo.eng.uci.edu | Mech & Aerospace Engr | way of pride.

Warwick Allison

unread,
Oct 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/16/96
to

1. Qt DOES have the Motif Look-and-Feel (unless you run your applications
with "-style windows", in which case they ... ... <shudder>, I can't say it)

2. Motif is resource-unfriendly - you have to either statically link (ie. big
ugly slow binaries), or EVERY user pays for the libraries.

3. Qt source is available, and is written in C++, so you can trivially change
the library behaviour WITHOUT CHANGING THE SOURCE. Anyone who disagrees
with this point doesn't have a clue about C++.

4. All Qt-based applications can be distributed freely for X11 on any Unix
environment to which Qt has been ported (all popular variants, and some more
obscure).


Anyway, this has been over and over before - why do so many people in this
group still not have a clue? Probably because far too many just TALK about
what others should do and about the relative merits of various toolkits,
but don't actually DO any programming, so the same old have-heard rubbish
is repeated over and over.

--
Warwick
[yeah, I'm a little ticked]
--
_-_|\ war...@cs.uq.edu.au ---------------------------------------
/ * <- Comp Sci Department, Hackers do it with fewer instructions
\_.-._/ Univ. of Queensland, ---------------------------------------
v Brisbane, Australia. URL: http://student.uq.edu.au/~s002434

G Sumner Hayes

unread,
Oct 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/16/96
to

If Troll Tech and their lawyers are out there, they might want to read
through to the end of this posting. It describes a number of
relatively large legal loopholes in the licensing agreement; a
combination of these loopholes could possibly (I'm not a lawyer,
though I may be some year) allow the development of commercial
applications for Windows 95 (or NT, or MacOS,...) under the "free Qt
license". Oops.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. All of the below information may be
incorrect. I assume no liability for damages caused by incorrect
information in this message.

war...@cs.uq.edu.au (Warwick Allison) writes:
>
> 4. All Qt-based applications can be distributed freely for X11 on any Unix
> environment to which Qt has been ported (all popular variants, and some more
> obscure).

Actually, this is not quite true and is something which has always
mystified me. The Qt free-software license agreement specifies the
following (among other things), which has a number of somewhat strange
consequences listed below:

> COPYRIGHT AND RESTRICTIONS
>
> The Qt toolkit is a product of Troll Tech AS. This license is limited to
> use on computers running the X Window System.

It does not specify that the license agreement applies only to Unix
systems; bear in mind that Unix is a trademark, and I don't know if
Linux has the right to call itself "Unix" or not. Certainly there are
things like VMS and the Hurd which run the X Window System but are not
Unix; the free Qt license applies to them. That's not where it ends,
though; there are several bogus factors here that should be cleared
up.

1. It is technically illegal for me to install Qt on my Linux machine
unless I start X first; the computer must be "running the X Window
System".

2. If I start X on one console, but then run Dosemu on another
console and run Windows 3.1 under Dosemu, it is technically legal for
me to develop Windows applications under free Qt. Similarly, I could
use Wine/WABI (if they're ever available and functional) with gcc
(which can cross-compile Win32 apps) to develop Windows apps from
Unix; according to the licensing agreement those applications do not
need to be X applications. The machine simply has to be "running the
X Window System".

3. If I install or MicroX (or another X server) on my Windows machine
or MacX on my Macintosh and run them, it is technically legal for me
to develop Windows or Macintosh applications under free Qt, even if
the applications are not X applications (since the machine _is_
"running the X Window System".)

4. More realistically, it is perfectly legal to develop X
applications if I am running PM/X or XFree86 under OS/2.

I don't mind any of the above except #1, but they seem to be clear
violations of the spirit of the licensing agreement (except perhaps
#4). I doubt it would be easy to implement the Windows-specific (or
Mac-specific) code needed to exploit #2 or #3, but it is technically
legal so long as the Qt core code isn't modified. I really don't see
why free software for Windows or OS/2 or MacOS or the Amiga or any
other platform is disallowed (especially when free software for
Solaris or HP/UX, also commercial OSes, is allowed), either, but c'est
la guerre.

Another bogosity is in the following:

> You may use the Qt toolkit to create application programs provided that:
> - You accept this license.
> - Your software does not require modifications to Qt.

What if my software does not _require_ modifications to Qt, but will
benefit from them?

Example #1: I find a bug in the Qt draw widget. I'm writing a paint
program. I distribute a patch to Qt with my program. The patch isn't
required, but without it the program may be buggy. Obviously I would
send the patch to Troll Tech, but if they for some reason decided to
abandon the free version it would be nice for this to remain an
option. Under the current scheme, it is a legal option; I would like
to see it remain legal.

Example #2: I write Windows extensions to Qt which require a
modification here and there to the Makefile. I write free apps on my
machine using loophole #2 or #3 from above. I distribute the software
and the Windows extensions. The software doesn't require the Windows
extensions, but they do allow it to run on additional platforms.
Hmm... I don't mind this, but the Troll Techies might want to
consider it.

Another problem, this one more alarming:

> You may use the Qt toolkit to create application programs provided that:
[Above conditions snipped to avoid repetition]
> - You satisfy ONE of the following three requirements
> EITHER
> Users of your software can obtain source code for the software, freely
> modify the source code (possibly with restrictions on copyright
> notices, attributions and legal responsibility), and freely
> redistribute original or modified versions of the software.
[Or the GPL is used, or the LGPL is used]

This first condition expressly permits me to do the following:
1. Write KillerQtApp, a super awesome Word Processor/Web Browser/C
Compiler/Spreadsheet rolled into one. Release KillerQtApp into the
public domain, but only upload it to Bob, my partner at KillerSoftware
Inc.
2. KillerQtApp is in the public domain. This more than satisfies the
free criterion of Qt's licensing agreement. Bob can now take it
(since it is in the public domain) and release a copy under
KillerSoftware, Inc's highly restrictive commercial licensing
agreement even without changing a single line of code or recompiling.
If I give Bob a binary of KillarQtApp, he won't be using Qt to do any
of the development or creation of the commercial app; he'll just be
changing the licensing scheme, which is perfectly legit. In fact, the
Qt free license implicitly allows this sort of behaviour by insisting
that my users (Bob) be allowed to distribute modified versions of the
software.
I may even be allowed to develop Qt apps in the public domain on
my own hard drive, compile them, then change the licensing scheme
myself; this is much more legally questionable, though.

More sophisticated exploits of this sort which stand an even better
chance of being upheld in court exist, too.

*sigh* American law is so strange. It's really obvious what you
mean, but your legal statements aren't airtight and I think it's
highly possible for the sort of thing I outline above to be ruled
legal by U.S. courts. I could be wrong, though.

I like Qt. I like Troll Tech. They seem to be honestly supporting
free software. I wish them the best of luck in clearing up this sort
of legal mumbo jumbo so they can continue to work on a great widget
set.

Disclaimer: I refuse any legal liability for any damage caused by
misinformation in this post.

TTFN,

Sumner Hayes
sum...@cmu.edu

Arnt Gulbrandsen

unread,
Oct 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/16/96
to

G Sumner Hayes <sum...@CMU.EDU>

> If Troll Tech and their lawyers are out there, they might want to read
> through to the end of this posting. It describes a number of
> relatively large legal loopholes in the licensing agreement; a
> combination of these loopholes could possibly (I'm not a lawyer,
> though I may be some year) allow the development of commercial
> applications for Windows 95 (or NT, or MacOS,...) under the "free Qt
> license". Oops.

When we chose to release the source, we knew that would leave us wide
open. There are some small license holes, there more or less have to
be in order to make Qt usable for free software, and it's very very
easy for the dishonest to simply ignore the license.

If we can make a decent living from the honest _and_ provide a good
GUI toolkit for the unix/x11 free software community, we're satisifed.

> It does not specify that the license agreement applies only to Unix
> systems; bear in mind that Unix is a trademark, and I don't know if
> Linux has the right to call itself "Unix" or not. Certainly there are
> things like VMS and the Hurd which run the X Window System but are not
> Unix; the free Qt license applies to them. That's not where it ends,
> though; there are several bogus factors here that should be cleared
> up.

If you want to use Qt on unicos, the Hurd, QNX, linux or something
else which runs X11 but isn't Spec 1170-certified, that's okay. The
X11 version of Qt is for X11, not for unix.

> 1. It is technically illegal for me to install Qt on my Linux machine
> unless I start X first; the computer must be "running the X Window
> System".

In our opinion, no. If you really want to pick nits about the meaning
of "run": When you install Qt, your CPU is necessarily installing Qt,
not running X.

> 2. If I start X on one console, but then run Dosemu on another
> console and run Windows 3.1 under Dosemu, it is technically legal for
> me to develop Windows applications under free Qt.
>

> 3. If I install or MicroX (or another X server) on my Windows machine
> or MacX on my Macintosh and run them, it is technically legal for me
> to develop Windows or Macintosh applications under free Qt, even if
> the applications are not X applications (since the machine _is_
> "running the X Window System".)

Technically legal, but you'd need the Windows version of Qt to
compile. And there isn't any free software license for the Windows
version.

> 4. More realistically, it is perfectly legal to develop X
> applications if I am running PM/X or XFree86 under OS/2.

Certainly.

> I don't mind any of the above except #1, but they seem to be clear
> violations of the spirit of the licensing agreement (except perhaps
> #4). I doubt it would be easy to implement the Windows-specific (or
> Mac-specific) code needed to exploit #2 or #3, but it is technically
> legal so long as the Qt core code isn't modified. I really don't see
> why free software for Windows or OS/2 or MacOS or the Amiga or any
> other platform is disallowed (especially when free software for
> Solaris or HP/UX, also commercial OSes, is allowed), either, but c'est
> la guerre.

We like the Unix/X11 free software community.

> Another bogosity is in the following:
>
> > You may use the Qt toolkit to create application programs provided that:
> > - You accept this license.
> > - Your software does not require modifications to Qt.
>
> What if my software does not _require_ modifications to Qt, but will
> benefit from them?
>
> Example #1: I find a bug in the Qt draw widget. I'm writing a paint
> program. I distribute a patch to Qt with my program. The patch isn't
> required, but without it the program may be buggy. Obviously I would
> send the patch to Troll Tech, but if they for some reason decided to
> abandon the free version it would be nice for this to remain an
> option. Under the current scheme, it is a legal option; I would like
> to see it remain legal.

(There isn't a "draw widget" in Qt.)

Is there any way we might reassure you that the free license isn't
going away in any future version of Qt, _without_ further endangering
our ability to sell professional licenses?

Statement of company policy: We will continue to release new versions
of Qt for X11 for free software use.

> Example #2: I write Windows extensions to Qt which require a
> modification here and there to the Makefile. I write free apps on my
> machine using loophole #2 or #3 from above. I distribute the software
> and the Windows extensions. The software doesn't require the Windows
> extensions, but they do allow it to run on additional platforms.
> Hmm... I don't mind this, but the Troll Techies might want to
> consider it.

Right. Of course, in real life you'd probably buy a professional
license rather than spend a year writing something which people may
not be allowed to use with future versions of Qt.

> Another problem, this one more alarming:

<alarming problem deleted for brevity>


> More sophisticated exploits of this sort which stand an even better
> chance of being upheld in court exist, too.

Sure - but _is_ there any way to allow free software development in
all its strange varieties while disallowing everything else?

Personally, I think your fictional pal would be flamed to the south
pole by the c.o.l.* readers. If he's rational and wants to make a
profit, he might choose to buy a commercial license. It's not that
expensive, after all.

> *sigh* American law is so strange. It's really obvious what you
> mean, but your legal statements aren't airtight and I think it's
> highly possible for the sort of thing I outline above to be ruled
> legal by U.S. courts. I could be wrong, though.

Right or wrong - lawyers' fees are rather steeper than our
professional license.

--Arnt

Arthur Jerijian

unread,
Oct 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/16/96
to

In article <5400v7$c...@dialin33.zdv.uni-mainz.de>, Paul Seelig wrote:
>In article <326322...@erols.com>,
> Greg Howland <g...@erols.com> writes:
>> This sounds very similar to the Afterstep project.
>>
>As to my understanding Afterstep is just about another window manager.
>But Matthias' idea is about a desktop environment (can you say CDE?) which is
>a whole different thing.
>
>> Have you considered working with them?
>>
>Read his posting again. He is clearly differentiating a window manager from
>a desktop environment. Afterstep is about looks but not functionality and
>the KDE is primarily an approach for functionality.

He probably meant GNUstep, which is intended to be a complete GPLed
OpenStep replacement. You can find more information about AfterStep
at http://www.afterstep.org.

>--
> Paul Seelig pse...@goofy.zdv.uni-mainz.de
> African Music Archive - Institute for Ethnology and Africa Studies
> Johannes Gutenberg-University - Forum 6 - 55099 Mainz/Germany
> Our AMA Homepage in the WWW at http://www.uni-mainz.de/~bender/

--Arthur


Martin Spott

unread,
Oct 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/16/96
to

Hi Matthias,

Matthias Ettrich (ett...@ti-ibm03.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de) wrote:
>
> -------------------------------------------
> New Project: Kool Desktop Environment (KDE)
> -------------------------------------------

[...]

I wouldn't like to see just another desktop development.
Linux gains popularity and respect by going conform to already existing
(open) standards. Why don't you/we call for support of the GnuStep project
if you/we don't like commercial desktops ?

This is a project to implement a desktop which is based on an open standard,
not bound to commercial Motif, possibly a little bit huge but very
functional and it goes the object oriented way, which will be a very
important criteria already in the near future.
There already exist implementations on NeXT and Solaris/Sparc.

See www.gnustep.org (Nort America) or
www.nmr.embl-heidelberg.de (Europe)


Martin.
--
EMail: I prefer correspondence to: Martin...@onyx.dirnet.com
If necessary, business mail can be sent to: Martin...@uni-duisburg.de
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Matthias Ettrich

unread,
Oct 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/16/96
to

William P Shaw (wps...@pitt.edu) wrote:
: In article <53vkaq$n...@newsserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de>,
: Matthias Ettrich <ett...@ti-ibm01.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> wrote:
: >nall (na...@spike.cs.duke.edu) wrote:
: >: >
: >: > I really believed that is even yet possible with Linux until I
: >: > configured my girlfriends Box.
: >
: >: was 'configuring your girlfriends' "box"' really that traumatic? <grin>
: >
: >yes, unfortunatly :-( I needed several hours and the result isn't as
: >good as I expected.

: Several hours! If I spent that long working with the 'box' and I
: didn't produce the expected result, I'd be sleeping on the front
: porch! --Bill.


Toll einen Auslaender mit Wortwitzen zu aergern. Spitze. Noch
was Konstruktives? ;-)

Sorry I didn't get it. Not really my kind of humour anyway.....

Best regards,

Matthias


: --

Ingo Luetkebohle

unread,
Oct 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/16/96
to

Linh Dang wrote:
> If their primary target is Linux, I think they would rather use Qt
> since they don't have to staticly link the gui lib in.

Did you ever see a company whose primary target is Linux?

---Ingo

Ingo Luetkebohle

unread,
Oct 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/16/96
to

Brian Kimball wrote:
> My impression is that a bunch of people just recently realized that the
> current linux/X situation really bites and they all decided to start
> their own little projects.

Yes, indeed, that is the fact. There exist (at least) the Linux
Interface Project (http://blank.pages.de/lip/subscribe.html for ml
information), OpenStep (a.k.a GNUstep), the Gtk group (with a slightly
different focus), a project of the Free Software Union, EZWGL and some
others I probably forgot.

And the dicussion is always the same. I have seen a posting from Warwick
Allison which boils down to a pretty good explanation of why people
choose Qt. He and I had some heated discussions about why _not_ to
choose Qt on the lip mailing list so if you need reasons for that, look
at the archive. I also traced the discussion that erupted once Peter
Mattis and Spencer Kimball announced their Gtk toolkit. It was
remarkably similiar to what I see here (e.g. "There are already many
good toolkits: Tk, XForms, Lesstif, Qt, etc").

The bottom line is, I'm rather tired now, from hearing the same
arguments again and again. I consider it especially interesting that
Matthias, for all the good has done otherwise, didn't even consider it
necessary to check if there are already any projects out which do what
he wants to do. I would be perfectly willing to take back my
suggestions, even if I consider them better, if that results in one
common project and I believe that many of the programmers currently with
the LIP are of the same opinion.

Unfortunately, many other people don't see the necessity to have one
common project. As long as that isn't the case, we will probably have to
just go along and chose among the things that evolve. This is rather
similiar to the way things have gone in the past with other standards
(TCP/IP for example) so this might not be the worst way to choose. I
fear, though, that it may be the slowest way to choose.

> It would be nice to see people buckle down
> and focus on one common project (like the KDE). I think this would add
> a lot of value to linux. Good luck dude.

I heartily agree. Lets get together folks and stop bitching.

---Ingo

John Hasler

unread,
Oct 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/16/96
to

Sumner Hayes writes:
> 2. KillerQtApp is in the public domain. This more than satisfies the
> free criterion of Qt's licensing agreement. Bob can now take it
> (since it is in the public domain) and release a copy under
> KillerSoftware, Inc's highly restrictive commercial licensing
> agreement even without changing a single line of code or recompiling.

I have a copy of "A Midsummer Night's Dream" on my bookshelf: the title
page says "all rights reserved", ie, the most restrictive possible license.
Yet I can copy out the text and do anything I want with it. Why? Because
the text is in the public domain. The copyright applies only to the
publishers changes, that is, his book design and typesetting.

KillerQtApp is in the public domain: it has no copyright. Bob has
copyright only on his changes. As he made no changes, he has no copyright
and so cannot enforce his licensing agreement. If he does make changes, I
can take them out and then release my version as I wish.


> *sigh* American law is so strange. It's really obvious what you mean,
> but your legal statements aren't airtight and I think it's highly
> possible for the sort of thing I outline above to be ruled legal by
> U.S. courts.

I think you are wrong about these specific examples, but I agree that Troll
Tech's license is vague and ill-conceived. They should either use the GPL
or hire an attorney (I'm not one).
--


John Hasler This posting is in the public domain.
jgha...@win.bright.net Do with it what you will.
Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you can; I don't mind.
Elmwood, Wisconsin

G Sumner Hayes

unread,
Oct 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/16/96
to

Ingo Luetkebohle <i...@devconsult.de> writes:
>
> Did you ever see a company whose primary target is Linux?
>

Yes, several. The most famous is probably Caldera.

TTFN,

Sumner

Kenneth Michael Apa

unread,
Oct 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/16/96
to

I think the whole KDE idea is worth three thumbs-up. I think we should
ask ourselves some questions before we get cracking.

1) There is going to be the whole C vs. C++ vs. Objective-C war.
Everyone has their own idea of what the greatest language on earth is.
I think if your going to use Objective-C you should support GNUstep and
help out there as much as you can. It would be really unproductive to
duplicate with they are already doing. C has had it far share of
toolkits. I agree with the original poster that we should use C++, but
perhaps we should vote on it.

2) I think we should kiss everyones standards goodbye. We're linux users,
right??? We can do things better and faster anyways. CDE = Motif part2.
Besides, CDE was outdated before the first alpha versions were in testing.
Lets let HP have CDE, SGI have OpenGL, Sun have Openlook(I know everyone
agrees with that one). Linux should have it's own standards and APIs for
just about everything, because Linux is better than the commercial Unices.

3) QT is real cool, but it's huge. They've got classes for everything.
Don't get me wrong. I think QT one of the best development tools I've
ever seen, but we could improve upon it. A smaller toolkit with a GUI
builder would be great. Let's keep the learning curve low. QT is just
too huge.

4) Let's take the best from each UI and make it better. An example might
be something like: NextMail, Iris Insight(online help), Mac
Scrapbook(said before), Windows95 style filemanager with a SGI style
IconCatalog, and some killer Icons(ray-traced in BMRT/real photos).

5) Everthing organized on a website so people can see what projects are
underway.


What does everyone think? I say let's kick some ass!


Ken

Brady Montz

unread,
Oct 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/16/96
to

wps...@pitt.edu (William P Shaw) writes:

>
> In article <53vkaq$n...@newsserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de>,
> Matthias Ettrich <ett...@ti-ibm01.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> wrote:
> >nall (na...@spike.cs.duke.edu) wrote:
> >: >
> >: > I really believed that is even yet possible with Linux until I
> >: > configured my girlfriends Box.
> >
> >: was 'configuring your girlfriends' "box"' really that traumatic? <grin>
> >
> >yes, unfortunatly :-( I needed several hours and the result isn't as
> >good as I expected.
>
> Several hours! If I spent that long working with the 'box' and I
> didn't produce the expected result, I'd be sleeping on the front
> porch! --Bill.

> --
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> ++ William Shaw the shaman wps...@pitt.edu ++
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Box privileges revoked!

--
Brady Montz
bra...@cs.arizona.edu

Arnt Gulbrandsen

unread,
Oct 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/16/96
to

xk...@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Kenneth Michael Apa)

> 3) QT is real cool, but it's huge. They've got classes for everything.
> Don't get me wrong. I think QT one of the best development tools I've
> ever seen, but we could improve upon it. A smaller toolkit with a GUI
> builder would be great. Let's keep the learning curve low. QT is just
> too huge.

As one of the Qt developers, may I ask what parts of it could be
dispensed with?

--Arnt

Tim D. Gilman

unread,
Oct 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/16/96
to

Kenneth Michael Apa <xk...@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> wrote:
>
>3) QT is real cool, but it's huge. They've got classes for everything.
>Don't get me wrong. I think QT one of the best development tools I've
>ever seen, but we could improve upon it. A smaller toolkit with a GUI
>builder would be great. Let's keep the learning curve low. QT is just
>too huge.

Sorry, but this is an ignorant statement. Qt is not huge. It is rather
small for a full blown GUI. Also keep in mind that it's basically
written from scratch (directly on top of Xlib, which is a *good* thing).
It doesn't depend on Xt or Xaw or any other crappy toolkit. It's
no-nonsense built the *right* way from the ground up.

As far as I'm concerned, Xt, Xaw and Xm should be blown off the face
of the earth never to be seen again. They're old dinosaurs and it's
embarassing that they still are around and kicking.

Let's face it. It doesn't get much better than Qt. It's small, fast,
rich, easy to use and understand, practical, great cross-referenced
documentation, Troll Tech is generous to free-software developers and
responsive to all developers. Nobody is going to come up with
something as good in a reasonable amount of time, and the fact that
it's maintained by people who get up and go to work on it everyday
helps to ensure its success and existence.

I'm pessimistic about this whole project for a couple of reasons. One,
I don't really like the name (K00L desktop). Two, I have heard these
kinds of ideas for years, which turn into fly-by-night science
projects, and then fizzle into oblivion. I think that's because 1)
there is no real leader who actually knows what he is doing and/or 2)
nobody is willing to spend the time it really takes, because unless
they become famous or something, there is no real reward.

This can't just be a group of people writing a mismash of different
things and sending it to a guy who puts it all together. To take on
something this ambitious, there needs to be a talented, knowledgable
leader who has a lot of time on his hands (like Linus).

Who is going to step forward and pull off a desktop environment that is
unified and built from the ground up, not just fvwm hacks and icons
that do "xterm -exec vi?"

Who has the ability, time and vision to really pull it off?

--
Tim D. Gilman <tdgi...@best.com> <tdgi...@bigbang.berkeley.edu>
http://www.best.com/~tdgilman
.fvwmrc archive: ftp://ftp.best.com/pub/tdgilman/Fvwmrcs

G Sumner Hayes

unread,
Oct 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/16/96
to

Arnt Gulbrandsen <agu...@troll.no> writes:
>
> When we chose to release the source, we knew that would leave us wide
> open. There are some small license holes, there more or less have to
> be in order to make Qt usable for free software, and it's very very
> easy for the dishonest to simply ignore the license.

Okay, sounds good. I have no problems adhering to the spirit of the
agreement, but I also have a twisted mind that likes to look for
loopholes. I just thought I'd point them out in case you hadn't
considered this.

TTFN,

Sumner

Markus Gutschke

unread,
Oct 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/16/96
to

G Sumner Hayes <sum...@CMU.EDU> writes:
> kca...@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Kevin Cabral) writes:
> > BTW: I hope you will consider porting LyX over to Qt in the future, and I
> > hope that The Gimp will also join it in moving to more open libraries.
> >
> The Gimp, in new versions, doesn't require Motif; it uses a free
> Motif-appearance toolkit written over Xlib only for speed.

>
> I think it's only available to developers, but they say it works
> really well and will be the basis of the next release of the Gimp.

Ah, is that why the developers' version keeps crashing on me :-) I
really like all of the new features, but so-far the current
developers' release is a little shaky. I am looking forward to the
next official release.


Markus

Brian H Cooper

unread,
Oct 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/16/96
to

>Sorry, but this is an ignorant statement. Qt is not huge. It is rather
>small for a full blown GUI. Also keep in mind that it's basically
>written from scratch (directly on top of Xlib, which is a *good* thing).
>It doesn't depend on Xt or Xaw or any other crappy toolkit. It's
>no-nonsense built the *right* way from the ground up.

> [...]

>
>Who is going to step forward and pull off a desktop environment that is
>unified and built from the ground up, not just fvwm hacks and icons
>that do "xterm -exec vi?"
>
>Who has the ability, time and vision to really pull it off?
>
>--
>Tim D. Gilman <tdgi...@best.com> <tdgi...@bigbang.berkeley.edu>

I think these two statements should form the basis of any continuing
discussion of this topic.
For those who don't like Qt, want everyone to buy Motif, think GNUstep
is going to be dandy, or want the Linux to subscribe to some other
commercial standard - Great! but take it elsewhere. There's absolutely
no point in trying to stop someone from offering another choice for
free. Don't like? Don't download it. Big deal. Put this subject
in yer kill file.

For those who think this is a pretty good idea, there seems to be a
consensus that Qt is done The Right Way and we like Troll Tech.
Therein lies the standard against KDE ought to be judged. Will
we develop it planned from the ground up as good as it's underlying
lib.

As for "Who has the ability, time and vision to really pull it off?"
I would hope that Matthias, being the original poster, would step
in and assume this role publicly, and it probably won't take another
Linus.

Here are a couple points I think ought to be considered:
1) This is another CHOICE. The developers may think it blows everything
else away but let's not get confused and think we have to fight anybody
over it. In the lab where I am, they just threw on CDE, and if
you don't like it, tough. I thought that was pretty rude. The argument
of "well why didn't the original poster just look at some existing
standard or support GNUstep etc" is IRRELEVANT.

2) There have been some comments about icon this and that and extreme
graphics. That's nice but not everyone wants that garbage/can handle
the load. Development will naturally drift toward a "look-and-feel"
but design ought to consider _from_the_beginning_ having every aspect
user configurable. I want a choice. The small amount of considerate
code added for this will not nearly match the bloat in silly cuteness
that some app developers will want to put in.

3) Matthias in his original posting noted specifically that this is
for ENDUSERS. I don't tend to view my machine that way, so a lot
of that doesn't appeal to me and I tend to abuse it installing
all sorts of mishmash stuff to see what I like, but I'd like the
rest of my family to be able to use it without asking me questions.
Especially my little one who is due in the spring. (At least
until he/she is nine years old or so and should be programming in C/C++
and abusing the machine in his/her own way ;)

4) Matthias Ettrich's document processor LyX is awesome and I wouldn't
have given this thread a second thought if not for that. It would give
his argument considerably more weight if he could convince the LyX team
to go for Qt instead of Xforms. hint hint.

Brian Cooper


Chris Waters

unread,
Oct 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/16/96
to

In article <543pfq$m...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,

Brian H Cooper <coo...@concord.eng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:

>Here are a couple points I think ought to be considered:
>1) This is another CHOICE. The developers may think it blows everything
>else away but let's not get confused and think we have to fight anybody
>over it. In the lab where I am, they just threw on CDE, and if
>you don't like it, tough. I thought that was pretty rude. The argument
>of "well why didn't the original poster just look at some existing
>standard or support GNUstep etc" is IRRELEVANT.

No, it's not! If you like the idea and want to succeed quickly, then
it's in your best interests to claim that other projects are irrelevant,
of course. Contrariwise, if you think that standards are a good thing
(and have a lot to do with why Linux has been so successful), then you
may want to remind people of this fact before they go running off
dumping a lot of time and energy into a project like this; time that
they might well have preferred to invest in creating something more
standard if only they had realized that that was an option.

I *am* in the latter camp; I don't actually object to a project like
this, but I want to retain the right to remind people that there are
other projects, which may be more useful in, for example, allowing
people to bring stuff from the office to work on at home at their Linux
boxen.

Yes, I do think that both sides have to fight! There are only so many
Linux developers, and people who are qualified to work on this project
are probably qualified to work on the others. OTOH, I don't think
either side has to fight very hard; the number of Linux programmers is
finite, but reasonably large and growing. I just object to being told
that I can't offer *any* negative comments in this thread no matter what
my feelings are about it.

Consider this: if Linux had come with pico, and you *could not get*
either vi or emacs for it, do you think it would have been as much of a
success? Of course, once you have vi and emacs, offering pico as well
is a win-win situation. Well, at the moment, you *can not get* a freely
distributable Motif/CDE or NeXTStep. Saying "forget it, we don't need
'em if we build this," strikes me as a lot like saying, "forget vi and
emacs, we don't need 'em if we build pico." Allow me to disagree--we
*do* need Motif, no matter how much you may think it sucks (and a lot of
people think both vi and emacs suck too). I have no objection to
alternatives--I might even like them better. I just hate too see *too*
much energy spent on them while the standard stuff--which some people
will *need* to see before they'll take Linux seriously--languishes.

david parsons

unread,
Oct 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/16/96
to

In article <543mtu$a...@shellx.best.com>,

Tim D. Gilman <tdgi...@best.com> wrote:

>Who is going to step forward and pull off a desktop environment that is
>unified and built from the ground up, not just fvwm hacks and icons
>that do "xterm -exec vi?"

You say this as if something is *wrong* with 'xterm -exec vi'; a GUI
environment that doesn't let people use their favorite editor isn't
one that's worth the effort of untarring onto their machine.


____
david parsons \bi/ Shoot, even Windows lets you use your favorite editor.
\/

Bryan Seigneur

unread,
Oct 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/17/96
to Matthias Ettrich

Wonderful, wonderful idea. But before you start another project
and make a new TLA, find out who's working on the same thing. Not
to criticize, but just to do my job. This is what a forum is for.
You will undoubtedly get a very detailed picture of where we are
in this free interface issue very quickly from the ensuing thread.

There is at least one project I know of which is working on
building a GOOD gpl'd interface specifically for Linux (but
since it would be free, it would undoubtedly be ported, at least
to other Intel OSes). I think they named it LIP (Linux Interface
Project). If messing around with Linux has taught me anything,
it's that often what you need is out there, it's just a matter of
finding it, or at least assembling the parts.

Anyway, just wanted to let you know about LIP. I'm sure much more
useful data will be added, too, before the thread dies. Here you
can find how to contact the LIP people, get on the maillist, etc:
http://homepages.munich.netsurf.de/Michael.Dingler/lwp.html

I love the name (KDE), I'm sure as they think about/start to
do things in LIP, they could use a great ironic name like that.
Yes, plenty of objects to recieve TLAs ;)

Matthias Ettrich wrote:
>
> -------------------------------------------
> New Project: Kool Desktop Environment (KDE)
> -------------------------------------------
>

> Programmers wanted!
>
> Motivation
> ----------
>
> Unix popularity grows thanks to the free variants, mostly Linux. But still a
> consistant, nice looking free desktop-environment is missing. There are
> several nice either free or low-priced applications available, so that
> Linux/X11 would almost fit everybody needs if we could offer a real GUI.

...

Now, eagerly going to reading your post in its entirety,
--
Bryan Seigneur
/ / inux
/ /__ink ==> http://www.sonetech.com/~bry/linmarks.html
/____/ist

Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen

unread,
Oct 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/17/96
to

>have given this thread a second thought if not for that. It would give
>his argument considerably more weight if he could convince the LyX team
>to go for Qt instead of Xforms. hint hint.

You can probably bribe us :-)

Greets,

Asger Alstrup


Anselm Lingnau

unread,
Oct 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/17/96
to

Im Artikel <32651589...@devconsult.de> schrieb
Ingo Luetkebohle <i...@devconsult.de>:

> Did you ever see a company whose primary target is Linux?

Caldera?

Anselm
--
Anselm Lingnau ......................... lin...@tm.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de
Trying to outsmart a compiler defeats the purpose of using one.
--- Brian Kernighan & P. J. Plauger, *The Elements of Programming Style*

Warwick Allison

unread,
Oct 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/17/96
to

xk...@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Kenneth Michael Apa) writes:

>3) QT is real cool, but it's huge. They've got classes for everything.
>Don't get me wrong. I think QT one of the best development tools I've
>ever seen, but we could improve upon it. A smaller toolkit with a GUI
>builder would be great. Let's keep the learning curve low. QT is just
>too huge.

I wrote my first derived widget class in Qt just 24 hours after downloading
it, yet some Motif programmers go on for years without ever doing so. If Qt
is anything, it isn't difficult to learn - check out the awesome on-line
docs (http://www.troll.no/qt/index.html).

As for huge, surely you don't mean the executables are huge - programs
can be as small as 10K, since they dynamically link (unlike evil Motif
for most free software users), and even the dynamic library is only 840K,
that's close to Xt+Xaw3d (610K), yet packs in four times the functionality.

Finally, YES, "we could improve upon it". That's the great thing about
C++ - you can extend other code to your wishes without having to hack away
at the base code.

--
Warwick

Brian H Cooper

unread,
Oct 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/17/96
to

In article <designDz...@netcom.com>,

Chris Waters <des...@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <543pfq$m...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>Brian H Cooper <coo...@concord.eng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>
>>of "well why didn't the original poster just look at some existing
>>standard or support GNUstep etc" is IRRELEVANT.
>
>No, it's not! If you like the idea and want to succeed quickly, then
>it's in your best interests to claim that other projects are irrelevant,

The projects themselves are not irrelevant. You should have gathered
that from my insistence on choice. The claim that Matthias didn't
foresee this in his original post IS. His arguments were clearly
layed out, that yes there are all these other projects and
a lot of people will think they are dandy, but he and others are
going to this anyway.

>
>Yes, I do think that both sides have to fight!

For the sake of principle, I have to agree with you here, but I think
your reason (below) is flawed.

> There are only so many
>Linux developers, and people who are qualified to work on this project
>are probably qualified to work on the others. OTOH, I don't think

I don't think Linux developers are a resource to be monopolized. My
time is my time.

> I just object to being told
>that I can't offer *any* negative comments in this thread no matter what
>my feelings are about it.

I give in on this point. But in the past 36 hours I have seen the
same few arguments presented 6 ways from sunday. Can I suggest a
more productive line of attack:

Hey I think trying to make this environment is a great
idea. I think we need these features: a,b,c,d,e.

Then sit back and let everybody say: Yeah! That's exactly what we
need except 'e' sucks.

Then you say (here's the kicker): Well system Z is doing all that
except maybe 'd' is pretty much crap right now but if you guys
wanted to fill in this piece, we're done!

Then the final step is to see how many pieces f,g,h,i that KDE people
want that system Z will _never_ be interested in.

As far as OG's Motif+CDE goes (the system I was complaining about
originally), the powers that be have tried to convince us it's great
this and that, but it treats the user like a child. Granted, that
kind of "standard" may get it far in the MS world, but I really do
think we can do without it.


>
>Consider this: if Linux had come with pico, and you *could not get*
>either vi or emacs for it, do you think it would have been as much of a
>success? Of course, once you have vi and emacs, offering pico as well
>is a win-win situation. Well, at the moment, you *can not get* a freely
>distributable Motif/CDE or NeXTStep. Saying "forget it, we don't need
>'em if we build this," strikes me as a lot like saying, "forget vi and
>emacs, we don't need 'em if we build pico." Allow me to disagree--we
>*do* need Motif, no matter how much you may think it sucks (and a lot of
>people think both vi and emacs suck too). I have no objection to
>alternatives--I might even like them better. I just hate too see *too*
>much energy spent on them while the standard stuff--which some people
>will *need* to see before they'll take Linux seriously--languishes.

I think this argument can be turned on it's head. Restate your
quote as "forget it, we don't need another free environment
project if we just let Open Group and Gnu build theirs"
BTW: jed is the one true editor ;)

Whether Motif sucks or not, I don't think the mainstream Linux community
can accept any system without freely available source, and clones
are going to have a tough time when OG merges it with X and CDE.
GNUstep looks like it's gearing up to be a graphical monster. Someone
please correct me if it's gonna go great on my 486/33 8Mb machine.
If I wanted to startup swapping out 4 Mb I'd use ms-windows.

James Youngman

unread,
Oct 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/17/96
to

In article <53tkvv$b...@newsserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de>,
ett...@ti-ibm03.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de says...

>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> New Project: Kool Desktop Environment (KDE)
> -------------------------------------------
>
> Programmers wanted!

Why not just contribute to the development of GNU Teak?

--
James Youngman VG Gas Analysis Systems |The trouble with the rat-race
Before sending advertising material, read |is, even if you win, you're
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/227.html|still a rat.


Ingo Luetkebohle

unread,
Oct 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/17/96
to

Anselm Lingnau wrote:
> Caldera?

Or LST, SuSE, Redhat, whatever. Yeah, sure, all those distributions have
Linux as their primary targets. I have nevers seen anyone of them
producing an office application, though.

The bottom line is: I am opposed to the "We are Linux, we don't need the
rest of the world" statements that have been voiced in this group. It
can never be wrong if something runs over many platforms.

---Ingo Luetkebohle

Kenneth Michael Apa

unread,
Oct 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/17/96
to

Arnt Gulbrandsen (agu...@troll.no) wrote:
: xk...@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Kenneth Michael Apa)
: > 3) QT is real cool, but it's huge. They've got classes for everything.
: > Don't get me wrong. I think QT one of the best development tools I've
: > ever seen, but we could improve upon it. A smaller toolkit with a GUI
: > builder would be great. Let's keep the learning curve low. QT is just
: > too huge.

: As one of the Qt developers, may I ask what parts of it could be
: dispensed with?

All of those drawing routines for one. We can do that stuff in Xlib. We
just need a canvas. What we really need is something small that we can
build off of. QT wasn't design to be small so it's hard to really get
rid of any of the parts. I understand that you wanted to get rid of some
of the horrors of X programming(colormaps and fonts come to mind), but
your going to have to learn a little Xlib down the road anyways.

Ken


Peter A. Koren

unread,
Oct 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/17/96
to

In article <32635025...@lrz.uni-muenchen.de>,
Henning....@lrz.uni-muenchen.de says...
>
>I don't want to start a new widget war. If someone wants to start a
>project like KDE with Qt, it ok. But I think it is a good idea to have
>a close look at GNUStep ( http://www.gnustep.org ) before starting.
>GNUStep is becoming a clone of the OpenStep API from Next including a
>RTF textwidget and Display Postscript.
>
> Henning
>
>--
>Henning Brockfeld mailto: Broc...@wigeo.bwl.uni-muenchen.de
>Institut f"ur Wirtschaftsgeographie Universit"at M"unchen
>
>http://www.wigeo.bwl.uni-muenchen.de/~hbrock/

Good thought! What is the point of further fragmenting the Linux community on
selecting a GUI when an superior design is well along in being ported to
Linux?

One additional point to be made about GNUStep is that framworks are based on
objective C, a dynamically typed and dynamically bound language (and part of
the normal GNU gcc/g++ distribution). It is far simpler to do high quality OO
programming in objective c than in C++. It also subsumes all of C and can be
used in code along with legacy C++. And, of course, as the GNU moniker
indicates, GNUStep is GPL'd.

Peter Koren
pko...@gte.net home Linux Box `:-)
pko...@ti.com work WIN NT :-(


G Sumner Hayes

unread,
Oct 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/17/96
to

xk...@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Kenneth Michael Apa) writes:
> Arnt Gulbrandsen (agu...@troll.no) wrote:
> : As one of the Qt developers, may I ask what parts of it could be
> : dispensed with?
>
> All of those drawing routines for one. We can do that stuff in
> Xlib.

Gods, no. Xlib should be avoided at all costs; once you start making
xlib calls, you lose portability to other platforms. (It's the C vs.
Assembly argument all over again!)

TTFN,

Sumner

Steve Mazza

unread,
Oct 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/17/96
to

Hi -
Drawing routines should be done in Xlib.
X is portable. Therefore, so is the proposed project.

In article <0mNbSJ200...@andrew.cmu.edu>,


G Sumner Hayes <sum...@CMU.EDU> writes:

--
Cheers,
Steve -

====================================================
TSD, Inc maz...@steitz.com
1714 Connecticut Avenue NW http://www.steitz.com
Washington, DC 20009 http://204.180.171.217
phone: (202) 986-0024 fax: (202) 986-0014
====================================================

Frederick (Rick) A Niles

unread,
Oct 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/17/96
to Matthias Ettrich

Just to give my opinion...

If it's not GPL ... I'm againist it!

Your going to run in to the same hassles as with
Motif eventually. Just use lesstif or write your
own widget library.

Best / Worst case scenario:
Your project is a wild success to the point no
one wants to run Linux without it. However, you're
still tied to a proprietary solution and your can't
use it with other commercial UN|Xs without paying....

I think that's a bad place to be and would only
serve to undermine the concept of Linux as being
total free from licenses.

It's quite un-GNU...

--
Rick Niles.

Grant Edwards

unread,
Oct 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/17/96
to

Lars Hofhansl (lhof...@indiana.edu) wrote:

: I just want to give a few comment on that.

: Admittedly I'm tired of this TK-Monster-tale!

: It's slow when you write the whole application in plain TCL, but that's not
: how is was meant to be.

: You actually can register C-procedures as TCL-commands and call them
: directly from the interpreter (the only overhead is the command-parsing at
: runtime). You can also call evaluate small TCL-Scripts from within C.

[...]

: Granted, it's tempting to write the whole application in TCL/TK, and
: some guys seem to have misunderstood the whole idea.
: But then again, what do you want?

: - you can write the whole thing in TCL which is easy but slow

You can write the whole thing in Scheme, which is easier and faster. ;)

(or Python, or Perl5, or any of the other languages that work with Tk.)

--
Grant Edwards | Microsoft isn't the | Yow! There's a little
Rosemount Inc. | answer. Microsoft | picture of ED MCMAHON doing
| is the question, and | BAD THINGS to JOAN RIVERS in
gra...@rosemount.com | the answer is no. | a $200,000 MALIBU BEACH
| HOUSE!!

david parsons

unread,
Oct 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/17/96