I've been doing some research on the Web.
Apparently, *All* KDE applications can be run without KDE if
you have the KDE libs installed.

Here's a slackware-based distro that puts that fact to good use:

http://www.pcbypaul.com/absolute/

On 2008-02-09, Tom Newton <tom@server.invalid> wrote:
> On 2008-02-09, notbob <notbob@nothome.com> wrote:
>> On 2008-02-09, Tom Newton <tom@server.invalid> wrote:
>>
Tom

--
calhobbit (at)
gmail [DOT] com

On 2008-02-10, Chris Cox <ccox_nopenotthis@airmail.net> wrote:
> Tom Newton wrote:
>> These days, there are two kinds of Linux runners. Thanks to the
>> corporate-sponsored yuppy geeks at KDE/Gnome/freedesktop.org and
>> the distros that support those Windows-clone user-interfaces,
>>
>> There are the true Linux runners, who want to learn Linux and to
>> share their knowledge with others and/or write-maintain the free,
>> open-source software that makes Linux possible.
>>
>> And there are the false Linux runners who simply want a
>> free operating system and free technical support, who
>> don't care about learning Linux and don't have any intention
>> of doing their fair share of the work needed to maintain
>> Linux. Or of donating to the developers and maintainers of
>> the software they use.
>
> I think it's unfair to use the words "true" and "false" to
> divide users into two camps. The main things is that there
> are different levels of users out there with different
> levels of expectations and different desires with regards
> to how much they want to learn/play with their OS.

The difference between the two groups I am referrring to is not
one of "level".

One group wants to learn Linux and the other wants bargain
software and bargain technical support.

There's a huge difference. A qualitative difference rather
than a quantitative difference.

One group is here to give and take, the other is here just
to take

I skimmed the rest of your comments. You persist in either
misunderstanding what I said, or pretending to.

So what's going on? Are you just out of your depth? I see in
your headers that you are using Thunderbird, primarily a
web browser, for your newsreader, which is hardly the choice
of a Linux/Unix expert.

Or are you someone making money from all the ignorant appliance
operators now running KDE (which in turn runs Linux for them)?
Or perhaps you are *hoping* to cash in on that business opportunity.

After all, Tech Support for Windows/Mac is a multi-billion-dollar
industry....

The smell of easy money attracts a lot of unethical people who
lie as a matter of course....

And that money is not going to be made from people who actually
understand Linux. It is going to made from people who think that
KDE (etc.) and Linux are the same thing.

And because the reponses I've been getting are so predictble,
let me say, once again, that I do run X and a window manager
and use whatever X/graphical applicaions I choose to use. If I
wanted to run any KDE apps, I could do that without running KDE,
all I have to do is install the kdelibs. Which would take about
20 seconds and no skill on my part at all.

I am *NOT* a "guru". Not even close.

<snip>

Thanks for replying,

Tom

--
calhobbit (at)
gmail [DOT] com

Apprentices take and masters give?

Apprentices do the grunt work and learn the subtleties, while the
masters try to pass along their knowledge. If you think apprentices
give nothing, you've obviously never actually done research, nor
have you contributed to any significant open source projects.

On 2008-02-11, Peter Köhlmann <peter.koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> Tom Newton wrote:
>
>> On 2008-02-11, Beej Jorgensen <beej@beej.us> wrote:
>>> Tom Newton <tom@server.invalid> wrote:
>>>>I've been doing some research on the Web. Apparently, *All* KDE
>>>>applications can be run without KDE if you have the KDE libs installed.
>>>
>>> What are you saying? That it's ok to run K apps as long as you're not
>>> running KDE?
>>
>> It's okay to run anything you want. Obviously.
>>
>> But those of us who know Linux rather than knowing KDE, generally
>> prefer to use independent applications.
>>
>> Doesn't matter if they are also used in a collection of apps like
>> KDE or not.
>>
>
> You obviously have no clue about this

Yes I do.

>
> But keep on believing that Gimp and/or Firefox are CLI apps because you can
> start them from the CLI.

How else would you define a CLI (command line) app?

Not one limited to a non-X environment. My CLI happens to be in an xterm.
And all the apps on my box that don't run in the background are displayed
in X windows.

But the main thing here is that you are missing my point, which
is that it doesn't matter if you call an app from a colorful,
graphical menu (such as those found in so-called "graphical
desktop environments") by clicking on it with a mouse, from a
simple, ascii, bash menu in an xterm by entering a number, or by
typing the name, or an alias for it, on the command line.

All those methods work just fine and will call the same apps.

Some are much more efficient than others...

>
> Heck, *all* my graphical apps are like that...

No kidding.

"Console apps" is the term I would use to describe apps that don't
need the X environment. the GUI, to function.

Easy on the insults if you want me to continue reading your posts.
They aren't necessary and I won't put up with it.

Talk respectfully or talk to someone else.

Tom

--
calhobbit (at)
gmail [DOT] com

On 2008-02-11, Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel@gmail.com> wrote:
> Apprentices take and masters give?
>
> Apprentices do the grunt work and learn the subtleties, while the
> masters try to pass along their knowledge. If you think apprentices
> give nothing, you've obviously never actually done research, nor
> have you contributed to any significant open source projects.

I said, in that same section, that I was a simplifying.

What do you do, just skim posts for isolated sentences you can use as
an excuse to attack someone?

Get a fucking life!

Tom


--
calhobbit (at)
gmail [DOT] com

Tom Newton wrote:


< snip >

> Easy on the insults if you want me to continue reading your posts.
> They aren't necessary and I won't put up with it.

> Talk respectfully or talk to someone else.

I'll talk to you if you like it or not. Feel free to ignore it.

And "respectfully"? To a turnip without any clue whatsoever?
You've got to be kidding. You earn my respect. You don't have it by default.

And, given your outrageously dumb and condescending posts, you will never be
able to

--
I say you need to visit Clues 'R' Us. They are having a special on
slightly used clues.

In the sacred domain of comp.os.linux.misc,
Tom Newton <tom@server.invalid> didnst hastily scribble thusly:
> On 2008-02-09, notbob <notbob@nothome.com> wrote:
>> On 2008-02-09, Tom Newton <tom@server.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> If I can ignore their malicious gibbering, so can you.
>>
>> The only gibbering is yours. Single minded zealots like yourself only
>> obscure the real advantage of linunx... choice.

> That is simply not true. I am saying that we have the choice of becoming
> dependent on KDE (etc.) or actually learning Linux.

Rubbish.
The two have never been mutually exclusive.
There is no "Business conspiracy" to turn kde users into mindless drones.
And how can you become "dependent" on kde when kde apps work OUTSIDE the
environment?

>> I prefer the command line.
>> I use it and the keyboard whenever possible. But, I also sell online and
>> use photo utililies available on KDE.

> There are plenty of "photo utilities" that are not dependent on KDE,

So?
It's just a desktop environment? You know, something that sits on top of a
window manager doing things the window manager can't or shouldn't do?

Things that make the computing experience much more pleasurable?

Or are you saying we should all prostate ourselve before the altar of linux,
thrashing ourselves with birch branches whilst chanting Hail Linuses?

> and
> the ones that come with it can probably be used as standalone apps. Many
> of their apps can, like Kstars.

You said only this weekend that you'd "conducted some research" and
concluded that ALL kde apps can run without KDE. Make your mind up.

>> Gimp is not a CLI utility.

> Sure it is.

HAHAHA!
Bullshit.
GUI!="started by clicking something"
GUI=="Functions by clicking things"
Or are you now claiming that you can use all gimp functions by passing
command line options?

> I can bring it up by entering "gimp &" on the command line (CLI).

You can do that with EVERY application in KDE/Gnome/X. So what?
If the use of the program does not involve manually typing in commands and
data, it is not a CLI app.

> Just like I bring up firefox by entering "firefox &" on the CLI.

So firefox isn't GUI either?

> Someone running Linux from the CLI can use any independent graphical application
> they want to use. Only X and a window manager are necessary for that, not
> KDE (etc.).

So... If I were to type firefox now...
ridcully> firefox

(firefox-bin:8859): Gtk-WARNING **: cannot open display:

Well will you look at that...
No, you have to be in a SHELL in a terminal window in X (or manually set
your x authority and DISPLAY) in order to start a GUI app from the command
line.

You... You DO use the virtual consoles on F1-F6... Don't you?
No?
And you call yourself a linux user?!

>> KDE's Kuickshow is brilliant for previewing pics.

> I'm sure it is. So what? Can you use it without KDE? Aren't there other
> similar apps? Yes. Lots.

>> Quanta is great for doing html.

> So are other apps. Lots of them. And once again: Do you need KDE to run
> that app?

>> If you want to limit yourself to such a myopic use of the computer, be
>> my guest.

> I am not limited in any way. There is absolutely nothing you can do that
> I can't do.

Tried cutting an image from one app and pasting it into another?
Without manually saving the intervening temp file?

> Including running most of the apps that come with the KDE package.

ALL!

>> But, to come here spouting such nonsense makes you look like a
>> blithering idiot.

> Actually, you are the one who looks like either an ignorant person or a liar.


Nope... It's you.
your whole "KDE is evil and wants to destroy linux" schpiel is utterly
infantile.

> KDE is simply not necessary to run Linux.

tcsh is not necessary to run linux.
Even BASH is not necessary to run linux (if your distro packager decided on
a different default shell)
X is certainly not necessary to run linux.


So what?
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| spike1@freenet.co.uk | Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
| in |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 2008-02-11, spike1@freenet.co.uk <spike1@freenet.co.uk> wrote:
> In the sacred domain of comp.os.linux.misc,
> Tom Newton <tom@server.invalid> didnst hastily scribble thusly:
>> On 2008-02-09, notbob <notbob@nothome.com> wrote:
>>> On 2008-02-09, Tom Newton <tom@server.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If I can ignore their malicious gibbering, so can you.
>>>
>>> The only gibbering is yours. Single minded zealots like yourself only
>>> obscure the real advantage of linunx... choice.
>
>> That is simply not true. I am saying that we have the choice of becoming
>> dependent on KDE (etc.) or actually learning Linux.
>
> Rubbish.
> The two have never been mutually exclusive.

Didn't say they were.

But there aren't very many people who can run Linux from the commandline
that use KDE/Gnome.

There are a lot of people who _say_ they can run Linux from the commandline
who do, however. But they are either fooling themselves or lying.

And people who learn to use KDE/Gnome first, generally don't ever learn
the command line/bash.

They don't want to learn computers, they just want to watch vidoes and
play vidoe games and listen to music and buy stuff and chat.

Different mindsets entirely


> There is no "Business conspiracy" to turn kde users into mindless drones.

They already are mindless drones. If they weren't, they'd know better than
to use KDE/Gnome.

And yes, there is a business conspiracy to turn everyone but the elite
into mindless drones who will consume their products without question.

That's business DEFINED.

> And how can you become "dependent" on kde when kde apps work OUTSIDE the
> environment?
>
>>> I prefer the command line.
>>> I use it and the keyboard whenever possible. But, I also sell online and
>>> use photo utililies available on KDE.
>
>> There are plenty of "photo utilities" that are not dependent on KDE,
>
> So?
> It's just a desktop environment? You know, something that sits on top of a
> window manager doing things the window manager can't or shouldn't do?

How come myself and 10's of thousands of other Linux runners don't need
that "desktop environment" sitting on top of their window manager?

Who wouldn't allow so many of their system resources to be hogged
by one of them when they can do everything and more than the "desktop
environments" can do?

_I_ sit on top of my window manager. And I am a LOT smarter than
any "desktop environment".

>
> Things that make the computing experience much more pleasurable?

They don't make the computing experience more pleasurable. They run
people's computers for them and take the computing experience away
from them.

What they do is make it easy for people to treat their computer like
a fancy TV.

Or they _seem_ to do that. They _claim_ to do that. But someone running
KDE or Gnome has to spend a lot more time making their system work, over
the long term, than someone like me does.

It's the old story of the tortoise and the hare...
>
> Or are you saying we should all prostate ourselve before the altar of linux,
> thrashing ourselves with birch branches whilst chanting Hail Linuses?

I don't do that. I love Linux. It's fun. And I don't need a bunch of
eye-candy and illusory "user-friendliness" to enjoy it.

>> and
>> the ones that come with it can probably be used as standalone apps. Many
>> of their apps can, like Kstars.
>
> You said only this weekend that you'd "conducted some research" and
> concluded that ALL kde apps can run without KDE. Make your mind up.

That was posted after the article you are replying to.

You sure don't think very clearly.

Or you are a liar.

<snip>

Tom

--
calhobbit (at)
gmail [DOT] com

On 2008-02-11, Tom Newton <tom@server.invalid> wrote:
> On 2008-02-11, Chris Cox <ccox_nopenotthis@airmail.net> wrote:
>> Tom Newton wrote:
<snip>
>> And yes... their goal is to come up with a desktop environment
>> that can more or less replace what most computer users are
>> using. That is very true.
>
> And it will never happen. Computers (of the kind we are concerned
> with here) are simply not washing machines or TVs or microwaves.
> They are too complex.

I realized later that I was onto something there, Chris.

The goal of KDE/Gnome is to simplify running a computer.

But they are massive collections of software (larger than my entire
OS) that make that same computer much more complicated.

So they add more software in an effort to fix the problems caused by
that increased complexity....

It just can't get any simpler than the CLI.

Tom

--
calhobbit (at)
gmail [DOT] com

Here is a tip for Tom. Get off, take your medicine and wank your
dingdong, if you got one.