From: UnixOS2 Archive To: "UnixOS2 Archive" Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 14:09:50 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [UnixOS2_Archive] No. 160 ************************************************** Monday 04 August 2003 Number 160 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: KDE vs. GNOME : T.Sikora" 2 Re: KDE vs. GNOME : T.Sikora" 3 Re: Standalone RSYNC : T.Sikora" 4 Re: Re: KDE vs. GNOME : Alexander Newman 5 Re: Re: KDE vs. GNOME : Alexander Newman 6 Re: Thunderbird : Stefan Neis 7 Re: Thunderbird : Stefan Neis 8 Re: Re: KDE vs. GNOME : Stefan Neis 9 Re: Re: KDE vs. GNOME : Stefan Neis 10 Re: Re: KDE vs. GNOME : Akira Hatakeyama 11 Standalone RSYNC : John Poltorak 12 Re: Standalone RSYNC : John Poltorak 13 Re: Re: KDE vs. GNOME : Alex Newman" **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 00:20:25 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: Re: KDE vs. GNOME Steve Wendt wrote: > On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, T.Sikora wrote: > > >>>Why spend lots of time to enable OS/2 to run an inferior desktop. ;-) >> >>KDE is not inferior and it keeps getting better each release. Gnome >>sucks though. > > > KDE is not inferior to the WPS? Maybe that's not what you meant, but > regardless, let's not get into the KDE vs. GNOME flame wars here. Suffice > to say that some prefer KDE (such as yourself), and some prefer GNOME. Same old story... Tomorrow I'll like Gnome and KDE will suck. That's the good thing about choice. > > >>>Is anybody trying to get GTK-2 to work under OS/2? AFAICS, it spreads >>>rather rapidly in "Linuxland", so I suppose newer versions of quite some >>>software packages will require it sooner or later. >> >>v 1.2 is still pretty much the stable version for the majority of apps. > > > I think that is rapidly changing. > Originally I was going to say that. All the new generation GTK apps seem to use v2 but all the distros still use v1.2. > > > -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 01:04:23 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: Re: KDE vs. GNOME Alexander Newman wrote: >>Steve Wendt wrote: >> >>On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, T.Sikora wrote: >> >> >>>>Why spend lots of time to enable OS/2 to run an inferior desktop. >> >>;-) >> >>>KDE is not inferior and it keeps getting better each release. Gnome >>>sucks though. >> >>KDE is not inferior to the WPS? Maybe that's not what you meant, but >>regardless, let's not get into the KDE vs. GNOME flame wars here. >>Suffice >>to say that some prefer KDE (such as yourself), and some prefer >>GNOME. >> >> >>>>Is anybody trying to get GTK-2 to work under OS/2? AFAICS, it >> >>spreads >> >>>>rather rapidly in "Linuxland", so I suppose newer versions of >> >>quite some >> >>>>software packages will require it sooner or later. >>> >>>v 1.2 is still pretty much the stable version for the majority of >> >>apps. >> >>I think that is rapidly changing. > > > I just checked out the OO source site. For some functionality OO requires gtk 2, > - but not for everything, I think. > > Also a thing called PAM, what I've never heard of ;). But any >gcc 3.2 and < gcc > 3.3 apparently will work. That is, if all the libs and headers are kosher... It's an authentication module http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/libs/pam/ > > I tried to build gtk-2 myself last year, but an insane build env precluded > making any sense of things. > > Alex. > > Well I'm ready to try mozilla got my fingers crossed. -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 13:13:44 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: Re: Standalone RSYNC John Poltorak wrote: > Does anyone have a standalone version of RSYNC v2.5.5 available? > > (ie one which does not require emx.dll) > > None exist AFAIK. Jeff does wget work.. it should. If your building Perl then it does. What about update_base.cmd. When is this called? or is this run afterwards like build.cmd? -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 14:21:05 +1000 From: Alexander Newman Subject: Re: Re: KDE vs. GNOME > Steve Wendt wrote: > > On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, T.Sikora wrote: > > > > Why spend lots of time to enable OS/2 to run an inferior desktop. > ;-) > > > > KDE is not inferior and it keeps getting better each release. Gnome > > sucks though. > > KDE is not inferior to the WPS? Maybe that's not what you meant, but > regardless, let's not get into the KDE vs. GNOME flame wars here. > Suffice > to say that some prefer KDE (such as yourself), and some prefer > GNOME. > > > > Is anybody trying to get GTK-2 to work under OS/2? AFAICS, it > spreads > > > rather rapidly in "Linuxland", so I suppose newer versions of > quite some > > > software packages will require it sooner or later. > > > > v 1.2 is still pretty much the stable version for the majority of > apps. > > I think that is rapidly changing. Hmm...what I'm *really* interested in is which toolkits/libs are required to build/install/run OpenOffice . I'm off to do some digging... Alex. **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 14:32:16 +1000 From: Alexander Newman Subject: Re: Re: KDE vs. GNOME > Steve Wendt wrote: > > On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, T.Sikora wrote: > > > > Why spend lots of time to enable OS/2 to run an inferior desktop. > ;-) > > > > KDE is not inferior and it keeps getting better each release. Gnome > > sucks though. > > KDE is not inferior to the WPS? Maybe that's not what you meant, but > regardless, let's not get into the KDE vs. GNOME flame wars here. > Suffice > to say that some prefer KDE (such as yourself), and some prefer > GNOME. > > > > Is anybody trying to get GTK-2 to work under OS/2? AFAICS, it > spreads > > > rather rapidly in "Linuxland", so I suppose newer versions of > quite some > > > software packages will require it sooner or later. > > > > v 1.2 is still pretty much the stable version for the majority of > apps. > > I think that is rapidly changing. I just checked out the OO source site. For some functionality OO requires gtk 2, - but not for everything, I think. Also a thing called PAM, what I've never heard of ;). But any >gcc 3.2 and < gcc 3.3 apparently will work. That is, if all the libs and headers are kosher... I tried to build gtk-2 myself last year, but an insane build env precluded making any sense of things. Alex. **= Email 6 ==========================** Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 15:29:53 +0200 (CEST) From: Stefan Neis Subject: Re: Thunderbird On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, Jeff Robinson wrote: > One of the things that intrigues me about GTK is that on the Windows > platform they have the library compiled to "run native" using Windows > widgets for The GIMP, Rather, the authors of GTK+ did program an entirely new version which draws to Windows directly (instead of using X as the underlying toolkit). Especially, they are usingtheir own widgets modified to look like windows native widgets and feel more or less like the real thing. You'll notice the difference to a "native" Windows app, once you try to run it on a themed XP box (also elsewhere, but then you really have to carefully look at all minor details). It's quite the same approach as using everblue (but slighlty more restricted, i.e. for GTK+ only, not for all of X). Regards, Stefan **= Email 7 ==========================** Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 15:41:24 +0200 (CEST) From: Stefan Neis Subject: Re: Thunderbird On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, T.Sikora wrote: > > Why spend lots of time to enable OS/2 to run an inferior desktop. ;-) > > KDE is not inferior and it keeps getting better each release. Gnome > sucks though. IMHO, you got it the wrong way round. ;-) And PM _is_ superior. ;-) > > Is anybody trying to get GTK-2 to work under OS/2? AFAICS, it spreads > > rather rapidly in "Linuxland", so I suppose newer versions of quite some > > software packages will require it sooner or later. > > v 1.2 is still pretty much the stable version for the majority of apps. Right now, I agree. Version 2 is still quite new. But I have the impression that people are upgrading. > Time spent with KDE might be a better choice. Qt is commercial toolkit, GTK+ is free. That's why my preference goes to GTK+. KDE or Gnome is a different matter, but I don't need either of them. > It's pretty much the standard on Unix desktops. AFAIK, CDE (Common Desktop Enironment) is the standard according to AIX, HP/UX, Solaris, IRIX. And Soalris alternatively offers to install Gnome. KDE is supported by none of the UNIX desktops. ;-) Though it's admittedly quite common on all those free unix-like desktops. > A simple gui frontend can be built in minutes. The same is true for e.g. wxWindows which can use any of Motif, GTK+, Windows, Apple or (with some restrictions) PM. So why is this a big advantage of KDE? And how are the development tools related to KDE, anyway? It's probably Qt, you wanted to talk about, isn't it? Regards, Stefan **= Email 8 ==========================** Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 15:48:20 +0200 (CEST) From: Stefan Neis Subject: Re: Re: KDE vs. GNOME On Tue, 5 Aug 2003, Akira Hatakeyama wrote: > As I heard on OOo's porting-dev ML, first thing is STLport. AFAIK, STL is included in gcc-3.x distributions. Is there really a need to have STLport in addition to the "original" STL? Regards, Stefan -- Micro$oft is not an answer. It is a question. The answer is 'no'. **= Email 9 ==========================** Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 15:54:22 +0200 (CEST) From: Stefan Neis Subject: Re: Re: KDE vs. GNOME On Tue, 5 Aug 2003, Alexander Newman wrote: > I just checked out the OO source site. For some functionality OO requires gtk 2, > - but not for everything, I think. > > Also a thing called PAM, what I've never heard of ;). "Pluggable Authentication Modules", but I wonder if that makes any sense. User authentication in office software? And how should that work on Windows, which doesn't know anything about PAM? I suppose, there must be a different interpretation for that acronym... > I tried to build gtk-2 myself last year, but an insane build env precluded > making any sense of things. I just tried to just install a gtk-2 development package on Linux (currently, wxWindows supports both gtk flavors, but Unicode support and some other goodies are only available with GTK-2...) and even that proceess hardly made any sense (And that was just installing the distribution's RPM packages - half a dozen of them). Regards, Stefan **= Email 10 ==========================** Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 16:52:50 +0900 From: Akira Hatakeyama Subject: Re: Re: KDE vs. GNOME Greetings. On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 02:21:05PM +1000, Alexander Newman wrote: > Hmm...what I'm *really* interested in is which toolkits/libs are required to > build/install/run OpenOffice > . I'm off to do some digging... As I heard on OOo's porting-dev ML, first thing is STLport. -- Akira Hatakeyama E-Mail: akira at sra.co.jp http://www.sra.co.jp/people/akira/index.html chigasaki-minami, tsuzuki ward, yokohama, japan **= Email 11 ==========================** Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 17:04:46 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Standalone RSYNC Does anyone have a standalone version of RSYNC v2.5.5 available? (ie one which does not require emx.dll) -- John **= Email 12 ==========================** Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 18:43:25 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Standalone RSYNC On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 01:13:44PM -0400, T.Sikora wrote: > What about update_base.cmd. When is this called? or is this run > afterwards like build.cmd? update_base.cmd is work in progress. The idea of the command is to update the 'baseline' set of apps already installed once PERL has ben built, along with some new utilities. I would like to be able to replace all the apps in the baseline with newly created uptodate versions which would conform to a strict set of standards using an UX2 standard directory structure. This would mean that apps would be able to find termcap.dat or terminfo or whatever without needing to set dozens of variables. This is one of the reasons why it is much easier to build and use Unix apps. As it stands currently update_base.cmd will help to provide a good build environment by adding things like autoconf, automake, byacc, flex, ncurses, gettext etc which are essential for building a number of apps. It has a list of apps built in a specific sequence which has only been learnt by trial error. The cmd file does need working on to add more apps so that further utils can be brought up to date. One thing I have thought of including is a build of gcc but that seems like a massive task just now. In theory, you should be able to just drop in the line build gcc and it would do everything for you :-)... but were are not quite there yet. In theory, update_base.cmd could be extended to include everything you needed for a full UnixOS/2 distro including gcc, Python, Xfree86, Mozilla and all the rest. > > -- > T.Sikora > tsikora at ntplx dot net -- John **= Email 13 ==========================** Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 20:42:37 +1000 (EST) From: "Alex Newman" Subject: Re: Re: KDE vs. GNOME On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 16:52:50 +0900, Akira Hatakeyama wrote: > Greetings. > > On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 02:21:05PM +1000, Alexander Newman wrote: > > Hmm...what I'm *really* interested in is which toolkits/libs are required to > > build/install/run OpenOffice > > . I'm off to do some digging... > > As I heard on OOo's porting-dev ML, first thing is STLport. Thanks, I'll follow this up. Alex.