Posts about kde (old posts, page 2)

2003-03-01 22:14

D-BUS: a systemwide bus / IPC system

The link goes to a message by Havoc Pennington describing D-BUS, a IPC technology being developed for use in Red Hat, and perhaps as a future (think 18 months) replacement for DCOP and maybe Bonobo's IPC mechanism.

Sounds nice, at least what I can understand of the specs, and adopting it shouldn't cause any big trauma on the KDE side, since our DCOP classes are autogenerated by macros anyway. Hopefully, it may even be source compatible.

Lots more information, including the specs and an interesting take on KDE-GNOME cooperation by Miguel de Icaza if you follow the links a little.

2003-03-01 01:41

Simple KDE Trick #1

This is the first article in what will hopefully will become a series explaining how a little creativity can enrich the KDE desktop experience, maybe using a not-very-popular feature.

This time, I explain how to make listening to Internet radio a more pleasant experience, using quickbrowser buttons.

2003-03-01 00:41

KDE 3.1 vs. GNOME 2.2: How GNOME became LAME

Prepare for a flamefest of moderate proportions, courtesy of LinuxWorld.

If Nick Petreley had written this article, say, two years ago, it would have generated enough heat to pop all the corn in Mexico, though.

Special ironic demerits for the use of a forced acronym as mechanism for criticism.

2003-02-28 15:47

In the beginning

Well, I have been wanting to have a weblog for a while, specially since I got a permanent Internet connection at home.

After reviewing some of the freely available tools, PyCS/PyDS really look like the best combination. They are simple, yet powerful. I could even set a personal server to try stuff, and there's free space at pycs.net. What else could I ask for?

Even further, I think the structure and APIs are nice, so I may try hacking a quickie Qt app for it, since I also want to try the PyQt bindings and the eric3 IDE...

2001-04-09 21:28

Advogato post for 2001-04-09 21:28:30

Man, I'm in such a coding high, I feel like I've been smoking funny stuff.

KFTE now has the rudiments of a DCOP interface, and I decided this stuff is so cool, all apps should be extendable through external DCOP scripts.

So, I'll design a central repository/browser/editor for the stuff, then add the hooks in the libs to integrate them.

That way, you will be able to create your own menu entries and toolbar buttons that will run your own scripts to manipulate the data.

How cool would that be? :-)

KDE is going to be more scriptable than the Amiga. And I mean it ;-)

2001-03-26 14:15

Advogato post for 2001-03-26 14:15:58

Well, 6 months without posting an entry.

I must confess I was pretty pissed at some people around here at the time (note to self: maybe putting my real email address here is not such a good idea. Some people are really scary).

I have been a nullity when it comes to coding, I have declared KRN dead (and since support for KDE 1.x is waning, that's a good thing :-P)

However, I have had some recent events that make me think I may still have an app inside me trying to get out. More news on that tomorrow, hopefully.

I certified Taj (didn't knew you had a diary here, friend!) as master, because, of course, he is one.

After reading his diary, I chuckle remembering how I introduced him to python ;-)

2000-09-07 16:45

Advogato post for 2000-09-07 16:45:29

Uraeus, my friend, I will only tell you two things:

a) Nautilus ain't Galeon. And you missed the part about GNOME actually stealing (for a while only) KDE code. And that code is still used, and no forgiveness has been asked, that I know of. Should GNOME be now "illegal"? Again, I say no. If you agree, don't argue with me.

b) The apologize and forgive I do is honest. Really. I have said nasty things about Debian. I will apologize , for whatever that's worth, and I will forgive Debian for calling me a criminal, when I believe that was totally unwarranted. Again, for whatever that's worth.

If you feel strongly about that, well, see if I care.

sh It's nowhere as simple as "it links" or "it doesn't link", actually. You see, the GPL, in its fuzziness, doesn't say anything about linking. It just speaks about "the larger work" that combines the two works, the GPL'd and the not GPL'd. The mechanisms for combining are not in the license, and are debatable.

For example, I have always said that dynamic linking is not combining in the sense the GPL deals with.

Think about it: what difference is, from a practical point of view, between a bonobo component and a shared library? Only that there is a different way to call the functions, and that (not sure here) both pieces of code reside on different address spaces.

Just changing the convention for function calling, I have never seen described as a way to work around the GPL, and I doubt you want it to be.

As for being in separate address spaces, I remember RMS once saying that as long as things were like that, it was not "combining". Ok, but surely you don't want to say the opposite, that by being in the same address space it IS combining, because in that case, you get in a hell of a mess with any environment that doesn't support memory protection!

If you do, all GPL software would be illegal on, say, windows 3.11, and I know for a fact that the FSF doesn't believe that to be true.

So, the fine point is: what is "combining in the sense used in the GPL", and none of us has a straight answer, not me, not you, and probably not RMS, either.

This is yet another reason why the GPL is a mess.

2000-09-07 15:47

Advogato post for 2000-09-07 15:47:02

Nice: http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/opinions/2281/1/

I still say "I'll believe it when I see it", but at least I have SOME hopes of seing it.

I steel feel Debian has, in general, acted wrong in the past, but I will apologize and forgive. When the code is in, of course.

I wonder if this means that RMS will declare Debian to be non-free software, though.

Two more random license questions:

a) if KDE code was not properly licensed, then it was not licensed. If it was not licensed, noone could use it. If noone could use it, noone could derive from it. If noone could derive, gtkhtml is illegal, and GNOME should be dumped from Debian. And GNOME should ask forgiveness?

b) Nautilus (and other GNOME programs) are GPL and link (optionally) to mozilla. Mozilla is still not compatible with the GPL. Shouldn't those programs be declared "not properly licensed" by Debian, too?

My answers: no and no. But neither should KDE have had to take as much crap when others are allowed to get away with it.

2000-09-06 17:19

Advogato post for 2000-09-06 17:19:31

mazeone: If I give a copy of whatever to Joe, he is now in compliance, because accepting the copy is legal (he is not forced to assure MY compliance), and the copy contains only GPLd code. You could argue that I would be breaking the license one last time, but what's another stripe on the tiger? ;-)

brother: It's not a matter of black helicopters, at all. It's a matter of having a package (kdelibs) that Debian already said has no licensing problems, and still it never gets into Debian, after many many months. Why should I believe KDE will change their minds? After all, again, it was not licensing that kept kdelibs out! In fact, I still have not seen any rational explanation on why kdelibs was removed in the first place, except that they were wrong about the license of something in it (gettext). They were wrong. They knew it. Did they put it back? Of course not.

Besides, didn't knew that posting something in my diary was yelling ;-)

nymia: Odds of what? Odds of having fun coding? Probably. Odds of finding people to use the code? I doubt it. Odds of being sued? There are none whatsoever. The solution is so trivial (and described below) that it makes no sense to even whine.

Believe it or not, I am now totally relaxed. Since I don't give a damn about the whole bunch anymore, they can do whatever they want, including sueing me, if they really want to. They are dead to me.

Contents © 2000-2018 Roberto Alsina