Richard Stallman wrote:
>
>  > The truth is that if KDE had started as the GNOME project ( with the 
>  > same tools and priorities ).  It would not today be as good as GNOME 
>  > is today and GNOME may not exist.  
> 
> I would hesitate to assume that the developers of KDE are less
> competent than the GNOME developers.  What the GNOME developers have
> done, most likely the KDE developers could also have done.  And, by
> starting at an earlier date, they could have advanced farther by this
> point than GNOME actually has.
>
The choice of QT was based more on development speed than anything else
( according to the developers I have listened to ).  Basically they did
not
believe they could have done this much in this short a time with
anything 
less than QT.  Writing something of the caliber of GTK,  QT or even
Motif is not a trivial task.  Could they have done that and built a 
desktop that is now down to one fatal bug and a dozen minor ones 
on it in under 2 years ? They doubted that at the start and I doubt it
now.

However there was QT with it's various licensing issues, technically it
was ready for the job and they tuck it.  I cam along and saw the KDE 
BETA and felt that it was up to my needs and grabbed it.  This is an
individual choice that we will all have to make.  What is most important
is that potential users see the facts of the QT license and it's 
implications so they can make this very individual choice.

If only a few users feel KDE + QT is right for them and everybody else
seeks an alternative that is OK.  If 90% of "Windows->Linux converts"
choose KDE as I expect, this is also OK.  Just don't let the facts be
hidden.  Since neither side is hiding anything or misrepresenting
anything
the facts will be known and the users will decide.
>
Richard Stallman wrote:  ( in a seperate mesage )
> 
> Motif and Qt are a good comparison.  Both of them are useful if judged
> solely by technical criteria, both are non-free, so both of them are
> off limits for free operating systems.  That is why people are working
> on free replacements for both Motif and Qt.
> 
We will forever disagree on this matter.  For the simple reason that 
Motif attempts to extract money from users of free software while QT
dose not.  I understand your position that money is not the thing 
but I disagree with it.  

I prefer to attend nightclubs where all patrons are searched on the 
way in.  This is a violation of my rights but so is a bullet.  I
choose to be searched.  It is called making a compromise.

As to the continuing rift between KDE and GNOME.  I may be the only
person who believes this is a good thing.
-- 
Through the the Firewall, out the ruter, down the T1, bounced from
satellite.  ... Nothing but net.