Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
GNOME GUI

GNOME Foundation Elections - Final Candidate List 286

Posted by chrisd from the mc-begat-gnome dept.
Motor writes: "The list of candidates for the forthcoming GNOME foundation election is now available. And yes, RMS is on there..." Note for voters, the email will be sent out the 13th. Please note the Election Rules and Director Overview Good luck to all the candidates!
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

GNOME Foundation Elections - Final Candidate List More

GNOME Foundation Elections - Final Candidate List

Comments Filter:

  • I dunno about you guys.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 11, 2001 @05:42PM (#2551725)
    But I'm gonna do a write-in vote for Alan Cox.. somehow.

  • Damn... (Score:3, Troll)

    by Korgan ( 101803 ) on Sunday November 11, 2001 @05:46PM (#2551737) Homepage
    I truly hope that RMS is not voted on. While he has done great things in the past, his more recent attitude towards the community as a whole as done nothing but annoy me.

    Maybe, just maybe, I'm wrong, but I strongly believe RMS has gone from evangelist to extremist. Claiming to be the father of OpenSource, true or not, I feel rather strongly that he has grown too egotistical for his own good and just wants to be in the lime-light more than he wants to promote the over-all success and benefits of OpenSource and the Free Software Foundation.

    Maybe if he wasn't so anti commercial products and accepted that they do have a place and are necessary things would be a lot easier to swallow, but I've just had enough of him.

    Bill Gates and him should have a Celebrity Deathmatch to see who really is the father of OpenSource :-)

    • Re:Damn... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by SquierStrat ( 42516 )
      I agree. Commercial software has a place, and RMS needs to understand that. The lack of commercial software for linux is what keeps it a niche (server and special use I mean) operating system rather than a desktop OS.

      I'm not going to be one of the voters, but if I were, he would not get my vote. He has no business being there, and even his paragraph long biography shows his egotism.

      He needs to get a grip on the reality that commercialism can be good, and that he isn't the king of open-source and needs to lay off stupid stuff like Linux should be referred to as GNU/Linux...I mean really, Linux is the kernel, that fact that gnu tools are used for the kernel's compilation means very little in the naming scheme.

      Anyhow...off my soapbox.

    • Another way of looking at things (Score:4, Insightful)

      by AirLace ( 86148 ) on Sunday November 11, 2001 @06:06PM (#2551797)
      You say RMS shoud accept "that [commercial products] do have a place."

      First of all, commercial products and proprietary products are not the same thing. GNU has a clear set diagram [gnu.org] that categorises software and makes this clear. RMS has always accepted that commercial products have a place -- he is not a communist. However he believes that these commercial products should embrace the same development methods and openness that the Free Software community does. He has no qualms with CyGNUs Software for example, since all of its work is released under the GNU GPL.


      With this in mind, try to name one single case where proprietary software is valid or acceptable. Now you will begin to see what RMS is getting at. Even if you don't, you shouldn't be misrepresenting his ideas like this.

      • Re:Another way of looking at things (Score:4, Insightful)

        by geomcbay ( 263540 ) on Sunday November 11, 2001 @06:37PM (#2551886)

        RMS has always accepted that commercial products have a place -- he is not a communist. However he believes that these commercial products should embrace the same development methods and openness that the Free Software community does.


        The problem with RMS's view of embracing the same development methods and openess that FS does is that with such a method you can not make money on software. If you have to give the source code away for free to others, how can you make money from it in a practical sense?

        The only known ways are service and support. Service and support is fine for large enterprise software or webservers, the kind of thing OSS is good at now, but its not so good for desktop applications which should just work without being supported or serviced. This is the fundamental problem holding OSS back from the desktop, and the reason why Linux will never be a mainstream desktop OS unless there is some major shift in attitude by its users/developers.

        The fact of the matter is most software developers just can't afford to develop software that will be given away. I think the recent economic downturn is both good and bad for OSS, its good in that companies are more likely to adopt existing OSS software to reduce costs, its bad in that a large number of developers won't have time to further develop OSS because they'll be losing (or already have lost) their cushy day jobs which supported their efforts.

        • Re:Another way of looking at things (Score:4, Insightful)

          by johnnyb ( 4816 ) <jonathan@bartlettpublishing.com> on Sunday November 11, 2001 @06:53PM (#2551930) Homepage
          I think you're ignoring the people who do just this and make money.

          You're also ignoring the fact that most development is done for in-house projects, which has no business reason for being closed. 90% of programmers are employed in this fashion.

          • Re:Another way of looking at things (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Syberghost ( 10557 ) <syberghost@syber ... S.com minus poet> on Sunday November 11, 2001 @07:07PM (#2551968)
            You're also ignoring the fact that most development is done for in-house projects, which has no business reason for being closed.

            Actually, most in-house code has the strongest reason for being closed. If you have to pay a bunch of programmers to write your business software, and your competition then uses your code for free, you are at a disadvantage. It looks great to say "gee, we'll get our development for free, we'll just use the community's code", but that pyramid scheme rolls up on somebody who's getting paid to write that stuff.

            And the last thing you want is for there to no longer be a market for all those programmers; Open Source wouldn't exist without people to write it, and most of them are also coding to put food on the table.

            • It depends on your definition of open source.

              The way I understand open source, what it means is that when you give somebody your binaries, you give them the source as well.

              You just don't glom onto the binaries the way M$ does and refuse to hand over the source.

              This is the normal way of doing in-house code at many establishments. The exception is when the in-house company hires a consultant firm to write the code.

              The definition you seem to be going by is that open source means that you give the source to anybody who asks. This is "free as in beer," and is different from the kind of "free" that RMS talks about all the time.

            • What you say is really insightful. (+4 insightful) but you ignore the fact that a lot of times companies don't program just so they can hire programmers.

              Sometimes they hire their kid nephews or whatever just for the sake of giving them a job... And that's cool.

              But sometimes (most of the time even?) they aren't interested in supporting programmers so much as getting various programs for internal use.

              HTH
              • But sometimes (most of the time even?) they aren't interested in supporting programmers so much as getting various programs for internal use.

                The code has to come from somewhere. Somebody has to write it, and unless it's "sexy" or of general necessity, that's not going to be hobbiests.

                Again, there are reasons why the vast majority of code is written by in-house programmers or consultants for in-house use. There are also reasons why most of the folks who write Open Source work for a living, and most people who are good enough coders to be contributing to real projects want to make their living at what they do best; coding.

                Folks who get paid just to write Open Source are very much the exception. That is never going to change, ever. It is not in our best interest that it change, because the only way it will change involves there being a hell of a lot less market for programmers. If the Fortune 500 doesn't need 500 programs, but instead shares just one Open Source program, 499 out of every 500 programmers in the Fortune 500 will be out of a job.
                • >>It is not in our best interest that it change, because the only way it will change involves there being a hell of a lot less market for programmers.

                  I don't know why you think I would care about other programmers. And I'm fairly confident I can get a job regardless. Probably those other programmers should get a different job if they can't keep up.

                  • I don't know why you think I would care about other programmers.

                    Because if 499 out of every 500 programmers are out of work, you'll be competing against 499 times as many people for every job that exists.

                    And I'm fairly confident I can get a job regardless.

                    Well, if you're that much better than everybody else, you probably have nothing to worry about.

                    Unless, of course, you use Open Source software; which also won't get written if most of the industry is out of work. Ex-programmers who switch to being K-Mart managers don't tend to contribute a lot to the important projects.

                    You do use software written by other people, don't you? You didn't write your web browser yourself? Your OS? The tools used to build your web browser and OS?
        • If you have to give the source code away for free to others, how can you make money from it in a practical sense?

          By selling the software, the same as proprietary vendors do. Duh! Nothing in the GPL states that you can't sell the software that you create. It only requires that you provide the source code to your customers (on request).

          If your customers want to peruse the source to your product (which they've paid for) to confirm or fix bugs that they encounter, what justification have you for disallowing this?

          It's irresponsible to sell software that's "black box" as it's irresponsible to *use* software that's "black box".
          • You are glossing over the fact that with the GPL your customers can take your source code and resell it themselves (or give it away free, in binary or source form) as long as they also distribute any changes they make. So while in theory you could sell the software, in practice it doesnt work.
          • In a free market, you can't sell GPL software as a commodity for any more than the cost of distribution (including copying). For if your markup is significant, I'll buy one copy, make copies of it (which the GPL lets me do), distribute your markup over all my copies, and sell them for the cost of copying plus my smaller markup. My copies will cost less than yours, so I'll take away all your business, and if I sell enough I'll make a profit. If my markup is still significant, someone will do the same to me, and so on. So unless the market is very small, nobody can charge a significant markup and still sell a significant number of copies.

            You can only make money on it if you provide some extra value. This might be support, the promise of further development (which the FSF does), or good feelings (if people think your organization is worth donating money to).
        • The problem with RMS's view of embracing the same development methods and openess that FS does is that with such a method you can not make money on software. If you have to give the source code away for free to others, how can you make money from it in a practical sense?

          Sure you can: with consulting, contract work, training, and documentation. Such a software economy has many advantages: it encourages innovation because the same software isn't created and marketed by zillions of companies, it speeds up innovation because people can build on existing software, it increases efficiency because end users pay for a feature only once rather than over and over again with each upgrade, and it means that programmers get to do more interesting work and offers them a chance to work much more as independent economic agents.

          Of course, you cannot built Microsoft or Oracle-style empires in such a software economy. You also cannot have stock prices that go through the roof. Instead, you reward an hour of work with an hour's worth of pay. Opening up software brings it back from being a plaything of corporate megalomaniacs and monopolists to individual craftsmenship. That is, it brings individual skill and free enterprise back into the equation.

        • Microsoft software is also software that is better in enterprise settings than for individual normal users (VBA comes to mind). But look at the real reason why: The Office Suite is the #1 enterprise application. So office suites can be developed like any other application. I say, within a year, there will be a complete open-source answer to MS Office (OpenOffice is not quite there yet, nor is KOffice, etc. for enterprise users).

          I don't know about RMS. I think that he has written some important documents, stories, tools, etc. But I wonder how much he should be a spokesman for many of these large projects. RMS's presence risks politicizing the tools.
        • The problem with RMS's view of embracing the same development methods and openess that FS does is that with such a method you can not make money on software. If you have to give the source code away for free to others, how can you make money from it in a practical sense?

          Yet somehow I keep seeing Red Hat boxes sold at the local Best Buy, and somehow it keeps selling rather well.
        • You can make money like Troll Tech does (as well as Cygnus and a few others) -- release your code under the GPL, and force those who want to use your code in proprietary programs to pay you for the code under a different license.

          I can't remember where I saw this brought up, but I'm pretty sure I've read RMS say that he sees nothing wrong with this. And there isn't anything wrong with this -- you are providing good code to anyone Free program and programmer, and still making money off the traditional system. In many ways you do more for Free Software than if you released your code under the LGPL. You aren't locking proprietary software out, but you are giving a stronger incentive for them to release their software under the GPL or BSD license.

          It's a real shame that Troll Tech didn't switch to the GPL earlier, because I think we'd all be united behind KDE (and TT would probably be making more money). But they had every chance at the time -- too bad, really.

      • Re:Another way of looking at things (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Z4rd0Z ( 211373 ) <joseph at mammalia dot net> on Sunday November 11, 2001 @06:37PM (#2551887) Homepage
        I'll bite on this.


        With this in mind, try to name one single case where proprietary software is valid or acceptable.

        Wow, I'm amazed you can't think of one case where proprietary software is valid or acceptable. That takes a determined lack of imagination.Here's [vacantisw.com] a quick example off the top of my head of a company who could never survive by making free software. For highly specialized applications that have a very small market, it really doesn't make sense to be pushing free software.


        Now you will begin to see what RMS is getting at.

        Well, I understand what RMS is getting at, because I have read his writings: he wants there to be no such thing as proprietary software. That's fine for him, but not everyone shares his vision. No matter how much philosophizing he does on the subject, my definition of freedom will probably always conflict with his. This is my right. I fear that if his vision were the dominant one, I would no longer have this right.

        • my definition of freedom will probably always conflict with his. This is my right. I fear that if his vision were the dominant one, I would no longer have this right.

          No kidding... In the flerbage article [linuxtoday.com], ESR asked this question of both RMS and Tim O'Reilly (when the latter two were having their debate): if you two could get a law passed making proprietary licenses illegal, would you do it?

          Did RMS ever answer? Because if Mr. It's All About the Freedom To Choose wants to forbid the existence of proprietary software -- not just discourage it through discussion, but to forbid it beyond discussion -- then he's clearly unfit for any kind of leadership position.

          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
            Comment removed based on user account deletion
          • The only way proprietary licenses work is that men with gun from the governemnt are required by law to enforce them by gunpoint.

            If one is against the proprietary license, the solution is simply that the state should *stop* sending men with guns to enforce them, i.e. *remove* the laws that make such licenses possible.

            So ESR is the man who should defend why sending men with guns against civilians to enforce his ideas of interlectuel property is a proper task for the state.

            RMS is in this issue the one who might want less interfering by the state in the matters of the citizens.

    • Re:Damn... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by dvdeug ( 5033 )
      > I strongly believe RMS has gone from evangelist to extremist.

      I don't think he's changed behaviors; he's doing the same things he's always done.

      > Claiming to be the father of OpenSource

      When did he say that? From the way you use the word OpenSource, I'd you don't really understand anything that RMS has done, or why he objects to OpenSource.

      > true or not

      If it is true, then how can you fault him for saying it? What, "I don't like you because you know who you are"?

      > just wants to be in the lime-light

      There aren't that many times you can really say RMS wants to be in the lime-light. It's not RMS/Linux he's pushing for, for example, it's GNU/Linux. He wants you to assign the copyrights on GNU projects to the Free Software Foundation, not himself. He wants his project, his beliefs to be in the limelight.

      > if he wasn't so anti commercial products and accepted that they do have a place and are necessary

      Then there would probably be little free software. The only thing that enabled free Linux was free shells, free utilities and a free compiler from the GNU project. Some could have been rewritten; some could have been taken from the BSD projects when they were released and the lawsuits were over. But it would have taken a lot of time to remake the compiler, and the work needed to replace the shells and utilities would have made early work on Linux much harder. He could have used commercial software; but then why replace all the little pieces that permitted complete Open Source operating systems, if they come with Unix already?

    • Could RMS fulfill the required role? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Chuck Chunder ( 21021 ) on Sunday November 11, 2001 @06:17PM (#2551828) Journal
      The role of someone on the GNOME Board of Directors is to represent the best interests of the GNOME project [gnome.org] not the interests of any other third party [fsf.org]. Can RMS make this distinction?
      • GNOME's original purpose was to support the principle of software freedom. From GNOME's own website: GNOME is part of the GNU project, and is free software .

        Daniel Veillard's message is interesting. "...act on behalf of all GNOME contributors in the best interest of GNOME." Nowhere, however, does he attempt to clarify what this means. What is "in the best interest of GNOME?" That could mean a lot of things. For those infected by shareholder syndrome, it simply means making as much money as possible. I'm not saying that's the case here, but Daniel's silence doesn't reassure me otherwise.

        Who's eating who's lunch here? RMS for doing what he can to steer the project back to its founding principles, or those who would hijack the code and run?
        • I guess the (small) difference I'm seeing is the difference between "to create an entirely free desktop environment for free systems" [gnome.org] and "to support the principle of software freedom". One of these seems practical, the other political.

          Currently the only disagreement that I'm aware of between RMS and the GNOME foundation is the mentioning of the (non-free, but free software related [openoffice.org]) Star Office application suite some time back. This caused RMS to ask for a policy decision to never mention non-free software. (Does this mean that it would be no longer possible to announce that Sun have released GNOME packages for non-free Solaris?) Does this help in any way the goal of creating an entirely free desktop environment for free systems? I sincerely doubt it.

          The GNOME Foundation board should focus on facilitating interested parties (individual or corporate) create free software for the GNOME desktop. They should not be making it more onerous for these interested parties by creating policy for the sake of policy.
      • Since GNOME is part of the GNU project, I don't see how one could accurately represent the interests of the GNOME project as stated without being partial to the GNU project itself.

    • Re:Damn... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Ian Bicking ( 980 ) <(moc.ydutsroloc) (ta) (bnai)> on Monday November 12, 2001 @03:34AM (#2552814) Homepage
      For God's sake, someone mod this down as ignorant and uninformed. RMS is the undisputed father of GNU, and everyone should agree that he has been an extremely important figure in the Free Software movement. He's never claimed to be the father of Open Source, and in fact he goes to pains to distinguish himself from that philosophy whenever necessary. Had this guy ever read or heard anything from RMS, he'd know that.

      Also, the idea that RMS is doing this for his personal glorification is absurd -- people may (perhaps rightly) criticize him for portraying himself as a martyr, but he's not starved for attention (*coughESRcough*).

      If people want to start a debate on the place of proprietary software and the philosophies that RMS presents, can't it at least be hung off a slightly informed comment? Somebody who doesn't know any better will read this comment and think it's based in some sort of fact.

  • RMS claiming that he is the father of open source is like Linus Torvalds claiming he is the father of Linux. Sure, they've made contributions, but claiming that you are the father of anything diminishes the hard work of lots and lots of people who have written code. Of course, Linus has gone out of his way to acknowledge the thousands of people who have contributed to Linux - some in small ways, others in larger ways - but he hasn't tried to take all the credit himself -- just the opposite.

    On the other hand, RMS seems to want to claim all the credit himself...
    • RMS claiming that he is the father of open source is like Linus Torvalds claiming he is the father of Linux.

      No, it's much worse than that.
      There was no Linux before Linus. There was most certainly open source software before RMS. Fast forward 7 years before there was a FSF and you have free development of UNIX extensions at Berkeley. Fast forward back an additional 10+ years to the first computers owned by individual hobbyists, and all software was free and open source. Open source is a concept much older than the FSF. Now, you could go into the whole "Free" Software thing, but frankly, I don't like people who redefine understood words such as free.

    • Linus has a very strong claim to being 'The father of Linux'. RMS would never claim to be the father of Open Source, since he hates the term. He's certainly the father of free software though.

      I disagree with your statement that "claiming that you are the father of anything diminishes the hard work of lots and lots of people". These people are responsible for starting their respective projects and therefore should be classed as the 'fathers' of them. This does not in any way diminish the incredible effort made by thousands of other individuals.

      HH
      --
      • He's certainly the father of free software though.

        Disagree; as many have pointed out, BSD (and other)-licensed projects were going on years before RMS got his start; and bsd-licensed software is free software [gnu.org].

        Now, he's certainly the father of copyleft, the FSF, GNU, (L)GPL, gcc, and emacs... that oughta be enough for anybody.

  • My 2c on RMS (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Kiro ( 220724 ) on Sunday November 11, 2001 @05:58PM (#2551770)
    I really admire RMS, but I have to say, he does go off the deep end to the point that he may be doing more to HURT the FSF than help it.

    I understand that free software is as much a political movement as it is an idea for better software. However, RMS seems to be HOSTILE to those who don't make the same choices he does. Freedom to me, means, that, freedom. It's about having the freedom to make good or bad choices.

    The KDE controversy, the takeover attempt on GLIBC etc, makes him look more like a raving lunatic, and by extension, makes ALL of us who support the principle of the GPL and open source look the same. Why? Because Stallman proclaims himself the leader of the whole movement whenever asked, or not asked.

    While I have tremendous respect for the man, and his philospohy, his despotic style runs contrary to the whole anarchistic nature of free software. RMS needs to realize that not EVERYTHING needs to be called "GNU/"
    ===
    (The price of freedom is eternal vigilance)

    .
    • > The KDE controversy, the takeover attempt on GLIBC etc, makes him look more like a raving lunatic,

      Why? The KDE controversy was because he saw massive license violation, and wanted to at least make sure others weren't deluded into following their example. The glibc takeover is like complaining about Bill Gates' takeover of Microsoft Windows; glibc is a FSF project, subject to FSF whims. If Ulrich Drepper doesn't want to work with the FSF, he's free to fork.

      Neither of these show insanity, however much you might disagree with them.

  • uh oh..... (Score:3, Offtopic)

    by jeffy124 ( 453342 ) on Sunday November 11, 2001 @06:06PM (#2551798) Homepage Journal
    ...RMS's name is listed 23rd on a list that appears to have no particular order.

    Somehow i fear a bearded man with lots of hair going after the guy who put that page together........

  • talk about your newspeak (Score:5, Funny)

    by pnatural ( 59329 ) on Sunday November 11, 2001 @06:09PM (#2551808)
    quoth RMS:

    "I've been working for GNOME since years before there was a GNOME."

    RMS would make Orwell proud or scared, I can't tell.

  • Hold the phone... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Reality Master 101 ( 179095 ) <<moc.liamg> <ta> <101retsaMytilaeR>> on Sunday November 11, 2001 @06:27PM (#2551859) Homepage Journal

    I thought RMS doesn't use a GUI at all? Isn't he a strictly command-line only guy?

    If so, shouldn't one of the prerequesites to being on the board of a GUI desktop initiative that you actually use the freaking product? Why would he think that he's the right person for this job?

  • RMS (Score:3, Insightful)

    by geomcbay ( 263540 ) on Sunday November 11, 2001 @06:27PM (#2551860)
    It seems pretty likely RMS will be voted in. He's a huge "name" in the Open Source community (for good reason).

    However, I still think in the long run having him on the board will be bad for GNOME. He's way too anti-commercial-software, totally unwilling to compromise, and not really at all good in political situations since he just always says what he means. These are may be good traits in a technical project leader, but IMO not-so-great for people on boards of OSS projects.

    While OSS has made great strides thus far, its not quite at a point where it can live in a vacuum. If RMS scares off all the commercial entities, I can easily see KDE coming in and sweeping up, gaining more developers (commercial developers with vested interest in products but willing to share code back to main trees are very valuable), and just stomping GNOME.
    • If RMS scares off all the commercial entities, I can easily see KDE coming in... and just stomping GNOME.

      If all the commercial entities could be scared off by RMS, I'd be more concerned about their comitment to Open Source. RMS was the founder of FSF which, for better or worse, was the original Open Source organization. Whether you agree with his positions or not, it is undeniable that Linux would not have been here without the FSF software. Most commercial organizations participating in the Open Source community are aware of RMS's participation, his views, and the nature of the same. Throwing up the fantasy that these organizations are somehow unaware of RMS and will flee at the very sight of him and his opinions is simply spreading FUD. Even if he is elected, there would be ten other members of the board who would moderate his views. Why is it I get the distinct impression that some people are so scared of his opinions that they're willing to go to almost any length to shut him up? Pretty damned unappreciative of them, in my opinion...

    • ...I still think in the long run having him on the board will be bad for GNOME.

      Another way of putting this would be to say "If GNOME moves to support proprietary software, that would be bad for GNU." Does anyone happen to recall that GNOME began as free alternative to proprietary desktops?
  • I used to be a huge KDE fan until I thought about things recently. I was labeled a troll for making this post [slashdot.org] earlier. I will likely be labeled a Troll again and be ripped again for this post if its even moderated high enough.

    If KDE continues to capture "desktop share" among the Linux community, how will this affect Linux software development? Consider if KDE is on 80% of all Linux desktops 5 years from now. Do you think some small commercial software company will want to purchase a $2000 Trolltech license to develop software for the "Linux Desktop"? Some will, but many won't. This is not good for Linux. I realize they could still develop using other alternatives, but it wouldn't interoperate well with the commonplace "Linux Desktop" being KDE.

    Sure, Trolltech does great work and deserves to be compensated. However, I believe that desktop application development for Linux needs LGPL libraries. Commercial software really is important for the future of Linux. The small shops who don't want to open-source their software won't bring applications to a KDE desktop.

    And if KDE becomes the dominant Linux desktop and a commercial company wants to develop a Linux desktop application, why should Trolltech get compensated? What about Linus? What about the XFree86 developers? What about the hundreds of other people who pour hard work into Linux for free? This is what Linux is all about.

    KDE is dangerous...its too good. There is nothing wrong with Trolltech and I don't mean to bash them. However, the prominent Linux desktop can't depend on KDE. Gnome needs to succeed.

    • Re:Gnome needs to succeed (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Arandir ( 19206 ) on Sunday November 11, 2001 @06:53PM (#2551931) Homepage Journal
      Commercial software companies DO NOT need to purchase the Trolltech license. Only *proprietary* developers do. Huge difference.

      The Qt license may be one of the most "fair" licenses in history. It's Free if you write Free Software (GPL), Open if you write Open Source Software (QPL) and need to make that distinction, and proprietary if you write proprietary software.

      If a company is going to profit $20,000 next year off of a KDE application, then they can afford a $2000 license. If you're only going to make $2000 in profit, however, I would strongly suggest going into another line of work.

      What about the hundreds of other people who pour hard work into Linux for free?

      KDE is not Linux. It is a desktop that runs on Linux, Solaris, FreeBSD, IRIX, etc. Nothing Linux specific about it.
      • KDE is not Linux. It is a desktop that runs on Linux, Solaris, FreeBSD, IRIX, etc. Nothing Linux specific about it.

        ... apart from the fact that most developers and most users run it on Linux (No, I don't have any URLs to prove that, but I'd be very, very surprised if anyone could prove me wrong).

        • Most users of Mozilla run it on Windows. So what?
        • Well, how's this for starters:

          Freshmeat.net, Browse: Environment: X11 Applications [freshmeat.net]:

          • GNOME (316 projects)
          • GTK (137 projects)
          • KDE (168 projects)
          • Qt (47 projects)

          Check it yourself if you don't believe my cut-n-paste. This generally agrees with my experience monitoring developer's sites -- there is far more activity on the GNOME front than on the KDE front. Who gives a Krap how Kool your drap-and-drop support is, if all of your appliKations are Krummy and derivative? And don't get me started on that naming Konvention.

          Nate

          PS - Oh yeah, one more example I thought of a moment ago:

          Sourceforge.net: Software Map: Environment: X11 Applications [sourceforge.net]:

          • GNOME (1037 projects)
          • KDE (645 projects)


          Again, feel free to check it again on your own. As for me, I'll keep using GNOME because it offers a far superior computing experience. Even if it's not the default install option on Mandrake (my home distro -- so beware any KDE/GNOME counting based solely on who's running what distro).

    • Umm, that's what competition is all about. If you want GNOME to succeed, go in, help the developers, and make it suck less than KDE.

      PS> No offense to the GNOME devels, of course, but currently KDE 2.2.1 is significantly more advanced than GNOME 1.4. Only you can make that different in 2.0.
    • You were labeled a troll because you were WRONG.

      You do not need to buy a commercial Qt license in order to sell KDE applications. Are you saying that all the Linux distros who include KDE software are illegally doing it and that they need buy a commercial license?

      Nope. They don't need to. Qt is under the GPL. As long as you make open software, you can sell it as much as you want.

      What you said might have been true a few years ago, but not anyone.
    • Look man.

      1) The great RMS (trying to stay on topic here) would disagree with your entire post, say "screw the proprietary developers", and kick your ass for not calling it GNU/linux.

      2) If a commercial company is too cheap to shell out $$$ for a license from Trolltech, exactly how is it supposed to expect customers to pay for its software?

      3) Small commercial software companies, if they have an eye on being profitable, are going to develop for the largest market out there. Right now that means ponying up $$$ for MSVC++ and an MSDN subscription, and not developing for a fragmented desktop. If/when a linux desktop becomes a major consumer platform, said commercial company will develop for that platform, regardless of cost of entry, because that's where the money is.

      4) You seem to think that linux is all about doing work for free. "Linux" is an amalgam of many different parts, driven by many different motivations. Some of them, such as your small-time commercial developers, are in it for the money, and that won't change. (I have to agree about XFree86 though. Those guys work hard and their main reward is idjits screaming "X sucks")

      5) You seem to be convinced that "commercial software is really important for the future of linux". I flat-out disagree and note that free software is what got Linux where it is today; can you back your statement up?

      6) As long as you're trying to drum up small company support, there are already companies developing for KDE. Have you purchased one of their products yet? [thekompany.com]

    • I was labeled a troll for making this post earlier.
      I read your post as saying that you wanted to be able to make money from a "killer app" and use other people's work without releasing the source code or paying any money for the privelage of not releasing the source code - that it was OK for you to make money but not anyone else. It appears that you were just complaining about the price, but as I said before, if you can't afford it you can't buy it - use something else.

      Do you think some small commercial software company will want to purchase a $2000 Trolltech license
      If they don't want to the don't have to, they could always use Xt, Motif, the free Motif clone, gtk, or something in-house. If troll's target market was shareware on *nix people would still complain about $10 and refuse to pay. I'd be surprised if anyone that reads this has paid anything for *nix shareware.

      why should Trolltech get compensated
      I'm sure a lot of work and expense has gone into making qt what it is today on all platforms, and if they stop getting compensated all of that stops immediately. Linux, gcc and others all started in a different way.

      I still don't understand why you want to be paid, and want to use qt, but don't want the Trolltech people to be paid?

      Gnome has grown up from the KDE replacement idea (to a MS windows replacement - no it's a lot more than that), and at least one window manager supports both systems. The CDE didn't take off, no-one wanted to standardise. Why do we need only the one desktop shell? There's more than one shell and more than one window manager on most *nix boxes, people can always drop back to twm if they prefer - or one user may prefer fvwm and have E with a win* style theme for their significant one. As for dependancies etc in commercial products I have two words for you. Static binaries. I think with the rapid pace of change in gtk that is probably essential anyway.

    • Um, I don't follow. Someone please correct me:

      mrm677 is carping that KDE is bad because they charge $2000 for some product. He is saying that Gnome is good because they do not offer this product at all. Is that it? Gnome is ok because you *can't* buy a proprietary license, but KDE is bad because the proprietary license costs money?

      Have I been trolled?
    • You don't need Qt to "develop for KDE". Lots of other Xlib toolkits work just fine (I can plug the one I am working on, fltk [fltk.org] which is LGPL and totally free for commercial use). Yes they lack some of the stuff that Qt has, so you need to decide if it is worth $2K to get those extra features...

  • what's with the RMS-bashing? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by danny ( 2658 ) on Sunday November 11, 2001 @06:31PM (#2551871) Homepage
    RMS has never tried to claim "all the credit" for free software for himself - he does ask for more recognition for the GNU Project, but that's not just RMS, that's thousands of developers. If you check out the partial "GNU's Who" [gnu.org] on the web site, you'll find RMS in alphabetical position, not promoted over the others.

    If I were voting for GNOME directors, I should think RMS would make a fine choice. He's an experienced developer himself, he knows a lot about licencing issues, and his committment to free software development is unquestioned. Sure, he'll bring some politics into it, but the whole point of the GNOME Foundation is surely to do the politics, public relations, marketing, and so forth so the developers don't have to.

    Danny.

  • Interesting Contrast... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sphealey ( 2855 ) on Sunday November 11, 2001 @06:44PM (#2551902)
    MR. GATES: Let me start out, really the reason that you see open source there at all is because we came in and said there should be a platform that's identical with millions and millions of machines, and the bios of that should be open to everybody to use, and all the extensibility should be there. And so it was very predictable that once we had gotten the PC going, and going and gotten hundreds of millions of machines out there, that it had always been sort of free software and the universities would flourish and there would be more of that. We certainly accept free software as part of the software ecosystem. In fact, there's a very virtuous cycle where people do free things, some people find that adequate, sometimes companies will take that work and turn it into commercial products, those companies will hire people, pay taxes. And so you see the free software and the commercial software existing together.
    Bill Gates speaking at Microsoft's 2001 shareholders' meeting [microsoft.com]

    ==========

    I've been working for GNOME since years before there was a GNOME. In 1983, while formulating plans for the GNU operating system, I decided it ought to include a window system. Later, around 1988, we obtained X, but we found out that X only did the lower-level half of the job, so I decided we needed to develop a free software desktop to do the rest of the job. After our desktop initiatives in 1990 and 1994/5 didn't produce a working desktop (*), I became aware of another desktop project based on a non-free library (**), and spoke to the community about the problem posed by that dependency. This inspired Miguel to launch our third desktop project, the one that succeeded: GNOME.
    Richard Stallman in his statement of candidacy [gnome.org] for the GNOME Board of Directors.

    Hmmm...

    sPh

    • After our desktop initiatives in 1990 and 1994/5 didn't produce a working desktop (*),

      This qualifies him to have meaningful control in a third initiative?

      This inspired Miguel to launch our third desktop project, the one that succeeded: GNOME.

      This is an endorsement for Miguel, not RMS.

      Although the rest of RMS's statement (the part you didn't include) looks better, I think its safe to say the man hasn't written a resume in awhile...

  • Vote for Rhett Creighton (Score:5, Funny)

    by KidSock ( 150684 ) on Sunday November 11, 2001 @06:55PM (#2551935)
    5. RHETT CREIGHTON " The future is now, and that future is: Bowling Balls. Do you realize that if GNOME starts making bowling balls, we stand to net profit $11,000?! That's right, eleven big ones. Net profit, mind you. " No affiliation. Full statement at

    Name: Rhett Creighton
    Affiliation: none

    I haven't done doodly squat for GNOME. There is absolutely no reason to vote for me. I ran last year and got the least number of votes (3, including my own).

    I believe that free software is overrated. If elected, I will try to adopt a for-profit software model to the GNOME foundation. Actually, GNOME will stop making software altogether. Instead, it will make bowling balls.

    Anyone who votes for me probably should have all of their votes thrown out.

    Hi ho!
    Rhett


    Well, it's good to have someone with a sense of humor on the board. Or is it?

  • Why is RMS so upset with KDE? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by coe ( 31704 ) on Sunday November 11, 2001 @06:58PM (#2551945)
    It sounds so strange to me when RMS states that "gnome is the only one that succeeded". He takes pleasure bashing KDE without a reason or what do you think about this quote from:

    http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-announ ce /2001-November/msg00028.html

    -snip-
    I became aware of another desktop project based on a non-free library (**), and spoke to the community about the problem posed by that dependency. This inspired Miguel to launch our third desktop project, the one that succeeded: GNOME.
    -snip-
    • I think he means that Gnome is the only GNU-Desktop that succeeded. KDE is (thank god!) not part of the GNU-project.
    • RMS is against the KDE project because it is based on Qt which is not a GPL application. Because Qt is not fully Free or OpenSource software, RMS refuses to acknowledge it for what it is. As a result, he excludes KDE and anything else that relies on Qt libs as well.

      Things changed when Trolltech changed the licensing policy for the Qt libs so that there were essentially 3 different licensing models... Free, Open and Proprietry. However, even with this change, RMS still refuses to acknowledge it.

      I find it funning that Miguel was inspired to launch "OUR" third desktop project... I didn't know RMS had any part in the code base at all.. Much less that he used a Graphical GUI of any kind.

      Besides, while I use Gnome and haven't even looked at KDE since 2.0 was released, Gnome hasn't succeeded yet. Like Edward Scissorhands, its not finished yet.

  • Vote for Alan Cox's wife! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by thule ( 9041 )
    TELSA GWYNNE " I do docs, bugs, and hassling developers. I don't code. I also make last minute decisions. "

  • Jim Gettys (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Pemdas ( 33265 ) on Sunday November 11, 2001 @08:10PM (#2552079) Journal
    I don't know the guy personally, but having worked for Compaq in the past and being familiar with some of his past work, I'm glad to see his name on the list. Something he was involved in that many ./ readers may remember is the Itsy project, which can be found here. [compaq.com]

    If I were a voting member (which, sadly, I'm not), he'd definitely get my vote. So instead, I'll just lobby for him here. :)

    • Re:Jim Gettys (Score:3, Informative)

      by Oggust ( 526634 )
      Couldn't agree more. Mr Gettys is an X Consortium veteran. He saw that die, and from his postings, he's learned a bit from it; he has strong opinions on how the gnome foundation ought to be run.

      Also, he has all kinds of technical stuff going for him. He was one of the original authors behind X, for example.

      He also has a lot of (IMHO) good opinions on design. A short piece on that. [linuxworld.com]

      I believe he can (continue to) do a lot of good for Gnome.

      /August.

  • Pagent? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 11, 2001 @09:47PM (#2552277)
    Is it just me or does the candidate list read just like a Miss America pagent.

    "Hello Internet.. I'm Mr. G.G. Allen from the widget project! I've been hacking since 1986 and enjoy horseback riding and swimming. I really think that Gnome is the best thing since those little sprinkles on pop tarts!"
  • I actually think that RMS is a great guy, but should not be nominiated to the board of directors for GNOME. GNOME requires someone who can devote a significant amount of time to it, and I believe RMS has his fingers in enough pies already and would be pushed to dedicate the time that GNOME requires.

Slashdot Top Deals

"A car is just a big purse on wheels." -- Johanna Reynolds

Close