Linux-Advocacy Digest #106, Volume #26 Thu, 13 Apr 00 11:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Penfield Jackson bitch-slaps Bill Gates (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: which OS is best? (abraxas)
Re: What GUI development tools are there for Linux? (abraxas)
Re: BSD & Linux (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000? ("Chad Myers")
Re: How does WINE work? ("Chad Myers")
Re: Programming Languages (David E. Thomas)
Re: Vehical Comparisons (bronsing)
Re: Vehical Comparisons (Yns)
Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 dubious at best? (Itchy)
Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 dubious at best? (Itchy)
Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 dubious at best? (Itchy)
Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 and Win32 Emulator Making Progress (Itchy)
Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 and Win32 Emulator Making Progress ("Mike")
Re: Vehical Comparisons (bronsing)
Re: Vehical Comparisons (bronsing)
Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 dubious at best? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: What GUI development tools are there for Linux? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: What GUI development tools are there for Linux? (Mig Mig)
Re: What GUI development tools are there for Linux? (Mig Mig)
Re: What GUI development tools are there for Linux? (Donovan Rebbechi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: 13 Apr 2000 13:03:41 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Sascha Bohnenkamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[attribution lost]
>> If you wish to base this discussion on the title of Wirth's book, you
>> have made an error, because no where is it required that all algorithms
>> have conditionals . . . only that they stop. Which is why you could
>> reasonably describe an OS as not-a-program . . . they are not supposed
>> to stop.
> but we expect it to stop, from most OSes :))))
There are two interesting classes of programs (if we exclude programs
that are wrong :^) Algorithms (which terminate) and Reactive Systems
(which don't terminate, but which communicate a possibly infinite
number of times.) You could quite happily claim that "grep" is
algorithmic (should terminate given finite data) and an operating
system or network daemon is reactive (should always be able to do
something more.)
They are reasoned about using quite different theoretical machinery.
There has also been a lot of research in these areas in recent years,
and reactive systems in particular are far better understood than 10
years ago. (Yes, it does take a long time for some ideas to filter
through this industry...)
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- The small advantage of not having California being part of my country would
be overweighed by having California as a heavily-armed rabid weasel on our
borders. -- David Parsons <o r c @ p e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Penfield Jackson bitch-slaps Bill Gates
Date: 13 Apr 2000 13:06:54 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ attribution lost ]
>> Spell your name in ascii, asshole.
> Aw, Sweetie! Did I offend thee?
I think your software is mis-encoding your headers. There is a
standard for this sort of thing, you know...
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- The small advantage of not having California being part of my country would
be overweighed by having California as a heavily-armed rabid weasel on our
borders. -- David Parsons <o r c @ p e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: 13 Apr 2000 13:21:08 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Tao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...and..........the tale that MAC OS is more suitable for using graphics
> applications is a fairy tale.....ok....Windows was lagging behind on that
> market a couple of years ago but nowadays there are loads of graphics
> programs that are not available for the MAC!.
The tale was never that MacOS was better at graphics, the tale was that
mac HARDWARE was more suited to medium-level graphics manipulation. And
up until Apple's adoption of ATI graphics cards, it was true.
Luckily, most of the very high end graphics card manufacturers support
apple's hardware method.
And Windows *still* doesnt do firewire very well.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: What GUI development tools are there for Linux?
Date: 13 Apr 2000 13:23:29 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One reason that has kept me away from Linux is the lack of GUI development
> tools for it. This may change this year as Borland are going to release
> Kylix, a version of Delphi for Linux.
> Another reason has been the desktop. What I saw a while ago did not impress
> me - however, I had a spare PC at home so I installed Linux on it
> (something I try out every so often). I tried Gnome but didn't think much
> of it - then I tried KDE - ah yes, MUCH better.
I see. What you appear to want is Windows.
> What development tools are there for KDE - what toolkit does it use?
Go to www.kde.org and look.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc
Subject: Re: BSD & Linux
Date: 12 Apr 2000 20:42:41 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Timothy Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>jd hendrex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>Linus wrote the kernel (and still maintains) and put it out for others...
>>Richard Stalman (MIT) started the GNU movement with a printer driver...
>>Thousands of others the entire world over have since contributed...
>>And the beat goes on...
>
>I'm surprised at the way Minix has been written out of history.
>Linux started life as a Minix variant, in effect.
I don't think that is correct, and I think that the now infamous "Linux
is obsolete" flamewar is proof of that. The only part of Minix that was
used by Linux in the early days, was the filesystem. I've been told that
the Minix source was not even a guide to designing Linux, Bach's book
was.
I think that Linus' real contribution is in fact the Bazar development
method.
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP 0x07606049 GPG 0xD61A655D
Mr. Cole's Axiom:
The sum of the intelligence on the planet is a constant; the
population is growing.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,alt.conspiracy.area51
Subject: Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000?
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 13:39:33 GMT
"CG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2000 11:34:53 -0400, "S Car" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >actually, it has been reported just recently that _CIAKEY and _FBIKEY were
> >found in the CryptoAPI of W2K, in addition to _NSAKEY that was found
> >earlier.
> >
> >:)
> >
>
> I actually found an _ELVIS key.
What about _HOFFAKEY or _NIXONTAPESKEY or _NICOLEBROWNSIMPSON'SREALKILLERKEY?
The one I'm really scared about is the _ILLUMINATIKEY
You really have to watch out for those guys!
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: How does WINE work?
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 13:41:24 GMT
The Win32 API is just that... and API.
WINE takes Win32API calls just like the Win32 API does, and converts
them into the appropriate X calls or kernel calls (just like the Win32
API on windows does).
It's similar to the DOS subsystem and OS/2 subsystem in Windows NT/2000.
APIs are just translators between on way of speaking, or another
(your program <-> kernel).
-Chad
"Shumway, Gordon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I had been under the impression that WINE was an emulator (possibly
> requiring Linux kernel hooks) that intercepted Windows system calls.
>
> http://www.winehq.com specifically states that WINE is not an emulator,
> but it can execute Windows executable.
>
> So how does it work? Is it just a replacement for the windows DLLs?
> Will it crash if a windows program makes a windows system call without
> calling a routine in the DLL?
>
> "Mark S. Bilk" wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Corel is contributing to the development of Wine, the win32
> > emulator for Linux. This is a good thing, as it will allow
> > a lot of Windows software to run under Linux directly, without
> > needing any modification, nor a copy of Windows.
> >
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Programming Languages
From: David E. Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 06:38:43 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Sascha Bohnenkamp
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I don't want to defend the 'definition' proposed, but you are
>> mischaracterizing it a bit. He said a scritping language is
one
>> in which the commands are interpeted BY THE SHELL. This is
>> possibly an important distinction.
>no its not, because you cannot stop a shell to interpret any
language
>you want to.
>A shell is not much more than an interactive command-
interpreter, if it
>speaks
>c,pascal or whatever
>
My point is that ALL the distinctions are artificial. We make
the distinctions for a variety of reasons that are useful to
us. The definition specified SHELL the next poster used the
concept of interpeted C. They were talking apples and oranges
and there is quite possibly and important difference between the
two (depending on WHY we are making the distinction).
David E. Thomas
Rivercrest Technologies, Inc.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
From: bronsing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Vehical Comparisons
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 15:54:40 +0200
Davorin Mestric wrote:
>
> nice try.
>
> however, most of the people DON'T have problems when running windows that
> are not solvable.
>
> most of the people that run linux DO have problems running and >installing
> linux.
>
> linux apps crash more often.
>
> i have yet to see someone that actually used source to fix some problem that
> he had with linux. "you have source so you can fix your problem" is a myth.
no, the myth is that windows is user friendly:
it lures you into thinking: 'wow, this is really a great OS, so easy to
use and all...'; but then the sh*t hits the fan bigtime:
*back orifice is installed on your computer (and for most users there's
nothing you can do about it)
*you start-up using iowatch or some other non m$ applic in the
boot-script --> Crash (must press ctrl-alt-del and wait a long time)
*you want to play a nice game you still have from your old ms-dos days:
it won't work...
*develop an application using DOS under windows : you can't use the
full memory (ok, most users won't notice, but still...)
*want to get rid of IE5 'cause you didn't ask for it? most users won't
be able to uninstall.
Now, if you had the source....most of these problems can be solved
either by you, a friend, or the user community....
cu,
robert
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 15:07:51 +0100
From: Yns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Vehical Comparisons
bronsing wrote:
> [snip]
> no, the myth is that windows is user friendly:
>
> it lures you into thinking: 'wow, this is really a great OS, so easy to
> use and all...'; but then the sh*t hits the fan bigtime:
> *back orifice is installed on your computer (and for most users there's
> nothing you can do about it)
>
> *you start-up using iowatch or some other non m$ applic in the
> boot-script --> Crash (must press ctrl-alt-del and wait a long time)
> [snip]
What do iowatch and back orifice do? How can they be detected?
How can you ensure you don't have similar progs on your gnu/linux box?
------------------------------
From: Itchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 dubious at best?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 14:19:19 GMT
On 12 Apr 2000 22:24:44 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 01:53:18 GMT, Itchy wrote:
>>On 12 Apr 2000 21:45:00 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
>>wrote:
>
>Firstly, you completely destroy your credibility by not showing the decency
>and integrity to post under a single name.
Having trouble attacking the message, so you attack the messenger.
I had to stop using that ID and computer cause it's been getting
spammed with porno big time and the kids use it also.
At any rate I referenced my original post and both were signed Steve.
Doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure it out. You did.
>>But the fact remains that the "holy grail" of office suites for Linux
>
>Wrong. Corel Office isn't and never was the "holy grail" of office suites.
>Applix has been around a lot longer, and Corel, as the new kid on the
>block needs to prove itself. Thus far, it doesn't appear to be taking
>the crown from Applix.
Everybody has heard of Corel. Nobody outside of the Linux world has
heard of Applix.
Corel, being the big player in the office suite arena was supposed to
give credibility to Linux as an office based system.
I feel it has actually done the opposite.
>>This is classic fragmentation.
>>Corel WP installs ONLy on Corel Linux.
>>Corel WP Office 2k installs ONLY on Corel Linux...
>
>No, it's not fragmentation. It's a badly written office suite.
It's that too.
>BTW, it's not enough to show that this is an instance of fragmentation.
>You need to show that there is an overall trend towards fragmentation,
>and personally, I don't buy this. There always has been some degree
>of fragmentation, and we are seeing consolidation in some areas and
>the absence of such in others. You carry on as though there is a widening
>gap in the different distros, but you completely ignore the fact that the
>gaps have always been there.
The above mentioned Corel.
The trend toward binary drivers to protect source.
Different directory tree's.
Different package management systems (rpm,deb etc).
But the gaps are getting wider and the more the all mighty dollar is a
factor the wider the gaps will get.
>>>>It just goes to show once again that "supported, working, runs etc"
>>>>are words that have completely different meanings in the Linux
>>>>community.
>>>
>>>Not at all. Your "Linux community" is a strawman which you use as
>>>fodder for poorly founded blanket attacks.
>>
>>Nope. My statements are based on facts reported by a noted columnist.
>
>Since when did the said "noted columnist" speak for everyone ?
I simply posted what he said, which seems to at least in part echo the
review someone else posted here a couple of days ago.
>>>The Windows version does not run on Linux.
>>
>>Exactly, and shows why Linux is a moot point.Choose your applications
>>and then pick you OS and Linux will lose everytime.
>
>For my real work, Latex, Latex, and Latex. Linux comes out with all guns
>blazing. Yeah, I know, I use Linux applications, so that makes me "a geek".
>Your argument is entirely circular.
There is no argument. The office suite stinks and the way Corel is
deceiving folks by making them think they are buying a native Linux
application also stinks.
Steve
------------------------------
From: Itchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 dubious at best?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 14:20:48 GMT
This is a great opportunity for the folks at Applix.
They make a nice product, although I only used it briefly about a year
ago. I liked it better than StarOffice though. Much better.
Steve
On 13 Apr 2000 08:37:59 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cary O'Brien) wrote:
>The Applix marketing people have got to get on the stick. They have a great
>product[1], but they've got to get more mindshare.
>
>-- cary
------------------------------
From: Itchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 dubious at best?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 14:22:58 GMT
Mention those applications to a home user and they will think you are
from Mars.
Mention Corel and you'll probably get a response.
A decent Office Suite with name recognition will help sell Linux and
convert more people.
Steve
On 13 Apr 2000 00:02:08 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 01:56:14 GMT, Itchy wrote:
>>Yea, it's classic Linux denial syndrome.
>>Most of these yo-yo's wouldn't know quality software if it fell on
>>them.
>
>Quality software ? How about applications like Apache, Latex, vim, and
>applixware that haven't crashed in the three years I've used them ? Sounds
>like "quality" to me.
>
>Linux has been doing fine for years without Corel office, and it's not
>going to die ( despite your wishful thinking ) just because someone has
>released a lousy app for it. ( THousands of lousy apps for windows are
>released every day, but that hardly matters )
------------------------------
From: Itchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 and Win32 Emulator Making Progress
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 14:24:54 GMT
That's exactly my point. If you are running Linux and are happy, you
should be very upset if your Linux Office suite turns out to be
Windows code running on an emulator of sorts.
Steve
On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 05:18:54 GMT, Bloody Viking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>My solution is to not fuck with Windows anything in the first place.
------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 and Win32 Emulator Making Progress
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 14:31:01 GMT
"Mark S. Bilk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8d2s40$hko$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
>
> I suspect he's not a programmer, because "Windows code" and
> "Windows contamination" as aspects of WordPerfect don't make
> much sense.
Actually, Petreley spent years as a programmer. It didn't help.
> Wine implements the win32 API under Linux. When it is per-
> fected, any win32 application that runs under Windows should
> also run well under Wine and Linux without modification (if
> the app itself is bug-free). Wine will be, in effect, a
> win32 subsystem for Linux.
>
> That will be good for users, who can run win32 Windows soft-
> ware (some of which they may already own) under Linux. It
> will also be good for software companies, because they can
> develop a single version of each product, and it will run
> under both operating systems.
Whoa.
You're saying that developers should write their programs for Win32?
Can Linux really win if the only thing it offers is a Windows emulator so
users can run Windows software?
It didn't work for IBM's OS/2, or for DEC, or for Sun's WABI, and God only
knows how long we tried to get SoftWindows to work acceptably (and those
guys had the Windows source code to work from).
What makes you think it will work now?
-- M --
------------------------------
From: bronsing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Vehical Comparisons
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 16:33:43 +0200
Yns wrote:
> [snip]>
> What do iowatch and back orifice do? How can they be detected?
>
> How can you ensure you don't have similar progs on your gnu/linux box?
iowatch is a program that is delivered with iomega zip drives. It's a
utillity that helps you keep updates of your zip's. It's not a bad
programm, but under W98 on a LAN it can (doesn't always) cause your
system to give the feared blue screen.
Back Orifice on the other hand is a big problem for computer security.
It's a program that if you install it (and you can be tricked into
installing it easily!!) opens a port to your system. Now, anyone who has
a BO client program (a bigger program that is installed on the hackers
computer) and knows your IP adress(obtainable via e-mail-->finger or
some other util) can connect to your system and take it over.
It is extremely difficult for most users to get rid of this 'client'
once its installed. If you have it, you'll
The way to prevent this : TRUST NO-ONE. SCAN ALL INCOMING FILES WITH A
VIRUS SCANNER AND OPEN .EXE OR OTHER EXECUTABLE SOFTWARE FROM PPLE YOU
DON'T KNOW. And install a port scanning utility to guard your system
when on-line.
Even with a dynamic IP address, you can be located every time you go
on-line on the internet.
If you have more questions about this, visit the website of cult of the
dead cow (a big hackers club), and they'll tell you about it. Don't
download the program and become a malicious hacker. Use the info for
your own protection. If you want to hack something, hack your OS (if you
use linux, you really ought to give a try someday).
Security on a linux box is much better, but I don't believe air-tight
security exists for any OS. If you need to keep your data secret don't
let it rest on the computer, or use encryption if you're allowed to by
the government.
What I have just stated is only what I know, ask others for more and/or
better info about it.
robert
------------------------------
From: bronsing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Vehical Comparisons
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 16:35:59 +0200
ofcourse i meant to type DON'T OPEN SOFTWARE from pple you don't know!
bronsing wrote:
>
>: TRUST NO-ONE. SCAN ALL INCOMING FILES WITH A
> VIRUS SCANNER AND OPEN .EXE OR OTHER EXECUTABLE SOFTWARE FROM PPLE YOU
> DON'T KNOW. And install a port scanning utility to guard your system
> when on-line.
> Even with a dynamic IP address, you can be located every time you go
> on-line on the internet.
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 dubious at best?
Date: 13 Apr 2000 10:56:07 -0400
On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 14:19:19 GMT, Itchy wrote:
>The above mentioned Corel.
>The trend toward binary drivers to protect source.
There is no "trend towards binary drivers". There have been binary-only
drivers since I started with Linux three years ago.
>Different directory tree's.
Also not new. Actually, if anything, there's convergence here, because
they are forming standards as to where things are supposed to go. So the
trend here would be either neutral or away from fragmentation.
>Different package management systems (rpm,deb etc).
rpm, deb and Slackware's tgz packages have been around for years. There
is nothing new or alarming about this.
>But the gaps are getting wider and the more the all mighty dollar is a
>factor the wider the gaps will get.
No, the gaps are not getting wider. And you haven't been using Linux
for long enough to be in any position to verify that they are.
>>>Exactly, and shows why Linux is a moot point.Choose your applications
>>>and then pick you OS and Linux will lose everytime.
>>
>>For my real work, Latex, Latex, and Latex. Linux comes out with all guns
>>blazing. Yeah, I know, I use Linux applications, so that makes me "a geek".
>>Your argument is entirely circular.
>
>There is no argument. The office suite stinks and the way Corel is
>deceiving folks by making them think they are buying a native Linux
>application also stinks.
Yes, but that in no way addresses my above statement.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: What GUI development tools are there for Linux?
Date: 13 Apr 2000 10:59:04 -0400
On 13 Apr 2000 13:23:29 GMT, abraxas wrote:
>> Another reason has been the desktop. What I saw a while ago did not impress
>> me - however, I had a spare PC at home so I installed Linux on it
>> (something I try out every so often). I tried Gnome but didn't think much
>> of it - then I tried KDE - ah yes, MUCH better.
>
>I see. What you appear to want is Windows.
I use KDE and I certainly don't "want windows". Where do you draw
the connection ?
Actually, GNOME resembles KDE much more closely than KDE resembles windows.
So if you're going to tell me that KDE is a "windows clone", I'll tell you
that GNOME is a "KDE clone".
Hell, you could be forgiven for thinking that GTK/GNOME is QT/KDE without
name spaces at a first glance.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What GUI development tools are there for Linux?
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 16:00:24 +0200
abraxas wrote:
> Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > One reason that has kept me away from Linux is the lack of GUI development
> > tools for it. This may change this year as Borland are going to release
> > Kylix, a version of Delphi for Linux.
>
> > Another reason has been the desktop. What I saw a while ago did not impress
> > me - however, I had a spare PC at home so I installed Linux on it
> > (something I try out every so often). I tried Gnome but didn't think much
> > of it - then I tried KDE - ah yes, MUCH better.
>
> I see. What you appear to want is Windows.
Hmmm.. keep in mind that Gnome is essentially a KDE clone and a bad one at
that
> > What development tools are there for KDE - what toolkit does it use?
>
> Go to www.kde.org and look.
>
>
>
>
> -----yttrx
>
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What GUI development tools are there for Linux?
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 16:02:02 +0200
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> One reason that has kept me away from Linux is the lack of GUI development
> tools for it. This may change this year as Borland are going to release
> Kylix, a version of Delphi for Linux.
>
> Another reason has been the desktop. What I saw a while ago did not impress
> me - however, I had a spare PC at home so I installed Linux on it
> (something I try out every so often). I tried Gnome but didn't think much
> of it - then I tried KDE - ah yes, MUCH better.
>
> What development tools are there for KDE - what toolkit does it use?
www.kdevelop.org
Maybe you should try a GTK+ based (Gnome uses GTK+) and find links to Glade
and libGlade on www.freshmeat.net.. I prefer KDE but i just adore Glade and
libglade :-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: What GUI development tools are there for Linux?
Date: 13 Apr 2000 11:05:20 -0400
On 13 Apr 2000 13:23:29 GMT, abraxas wrote:
>Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Another reason has been the desktop. What I saw a while ago did not impress
>> me - however, I had a spare PC at home so I installed Linux on it
>> (something I try out every so often). I tried Gnome but didn't think much
>> of it - then I tried KDE - ah yes, MUCH better.
I didn't find the original post.
The first thing you'd want to do is learn QT. KDE is basically a bunch of
classes that use QT. The Qt docs are very good and it comes with a tutorial.
The API is quite nice to use.
Now once you have a "QApplication", you can fairly easily turn it into a
"KApplication", since the former is derived from the latter. Then you
can start looking at the KDE tutorials on developer.kde.org and try to
get a feel for the extras in KDElibs.
As for GUI dev tools, the most popular one appears to be KDevelop. There's
also a bunch of other tools for building Qt interfaces.
Cheers,
--
Donovan
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
