Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

CDE Open Sourced

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the set-it-free dept.

GUI 263

First time accepted submitter christurkel writes "CDE, the Common Desktop Project, has been open sourced by the Open Group. CDE was created by a collaboration of Sun, HP, IBM, DEC, SCO, Fujitsu and Hitachi. You can find the source here. It has been tested on Debian Squeeze and Ubuntu. Testers are encouraged to join the project. Motif will follow in a few months once some legal issues are sorted out."

cancel ×

263 comments

That looks... (4, Informative)

kiriath (2670145) | about 2 years ago | (#40894625)

Horrible.

=\

(Visually speaking of course, I know nothing of the innards)

Re:That looks... (1)

dingo_kinznerhook (1544443) | about 2 years ago | (#40894759)

Seriously. Agreed.

I've never understood why anyone would create a Gnome/KDE theme that imitated Motif. Motif is one of the ugliest, most horrible abominations to pass for a widget toolkit that I have ever seen.

Re:That looks... (4, Funny)

Xiaran (836924) | about 2 years ago | (#40894945)

Ah. I see you are someone who has never used Open Look.

Re:That looks... (1)

LizardKing (5245) | about 2 years ago | (#40895065)

You rotter - I loved Open Look, although my memories may be rosy tinted thanks to it being the first GUI I created apps for. I even have my XView programming and reference manuals somewhere - the API was quite nice, paritcularly when you compare it to the horrors of Motif (the widget library that underpins CDE).

Re:That looks... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40895249)

Seriously. Agreed. I've never understood why anyone would create a Gnome/KDE theme that imitated Motif. Motif is one of the ugliest, most horrible abominations to pass for a widget toolkit that I have ever seen.

And just to show how out-of-touch they are in *both* the world of GUIs *and* distribution platforms, they released it on SourceForce instead of GitHub.

Re:That looks... (5, Funny)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 2 years ago | (#40895497)

CDE! GOD YES!

They say that good things come to those that wait, I have WAITED for 20 years, to see this day!

:-)

Re:That looks... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40895579)

Because all the cool kids are using GitHub.

Re:That looks... (5, Insightful)

jamstar7 (694492) | about 2 years ago | (#40895527)

Keep in mind a couple quick things.

CDE came out during the computer Stone Age. At that time, CDE was cutting edge, blowing away Windows 3.1 (yeah, it goes that far back!!) as a GUI. This was the 90's, guys. The 'decent' GUI for Linux at the time was FVWM/FVWM2. Compare screenshots of the two, and you'll know why I was envious as hell of the 'commercial *nixes' at the time. XFCE came out as a CDE lookalike/workalike. And today it looks nothing like it used to Back In The Day. Motif? Uglier than my ex-wife, but back then, it was THE widget set, nobody else had come out with anything remotely like it.

Today we have all kinda stuff we can drop in. More widget sets than ticks on a dog, 90 zillion different window managers/desktop environments. Even Windows doesn't look the same. This is a piece of computer history on the level of the old Xerox PARC GUI that mutated into MacOS and Windows. The 'genetics' are there for you to see, warts and all, in its pristine prehistoricalness.

Re:That looks... (3, Interesting)

StefanWiesendanger (687733) | about 2 years ago | (#40895591)

Looks like you might have missed NeXTSTEP/OPENSTEP during the 90s... :)

Re:That looks... (4, Informative)

bigtomrodney (993427) | about 2 years ago | (#40894811)

Come on, seriously. It's CDE. You know, the closed source desktop that preceded KDE. To look at it in these circumstances and say it looks "horrible" could be compared to Windows 95 being open sourced and you skipping to saying "it's out of date". There's a massive piece of the puzzle you just skipped over here.

In fact, I'm left wondering if you'd even heard of CDE [wikipedia.org] before this article. I hate to say it, but you're reading Slashdot - we expect you not to RTFA most of the time but to be blind to something like CDE is fairly unforgivable.

Re:That looks... (2)

bobstreo (1320787) | about 2 years ago | (#40894943)

Did they ever open source SunView?

CDE was a much better interface at the time.

Re:That looks... (3, Informative)

LizardKing (5245) | about 2 years ago | (#40895101)

SunView was so much more than CDE. SunView was a complete windowing system and widget set, whereas CDE was just a desktop environment built on the Motif widget set for the X-Window system.

Re:That looks... (2)

larry bagina (561269) | about 2 years ago | (#40895211)

Additionally, early versions of GIMP used Motif. Instead of using LesTif (which was equally ugly but FREE), they developed GTK/GDK which was the basis for GNOME.

Re:That looks... (1)

matunos (1587263) | about 2 years ago | (#40895631)

I've used CDE, I was around in that era. It does look horrible. It looked out of date in the 90s and it looks out of date now. It (and Motif) was based on Windows 3.1.

I do still use NEdit though. Fantastic regex support.

And yeah, if they open-sourced Windows 95, I would say it's out of date. Who wouldn't? Who seriously want to build and run Windows 95 on a computer today?

The only value to open-sourcing CDE now is for historical purposes (Motif at least still has some useful applications, although OpenMotif probably covered them a long time ago). They can send that code straight to the Smithsonian for all I care.

Re:That looks... (1)

LizardKing (5245) | about 2 years ago | (#40895849)

It (and Motif) was based on Windows 3.1.

MicroSoft were even involved in the design of Motif and CDE, which took some of its look and feel from Windows 3.1, although I don't think MS contributed to the actual development. I'm pretty sure the Motif programming manuals from O'Reilly even mentioned MicroSoft in the introductory pages.

I do still use NEdit though. Fantastic regex support.

I use NEdit pretty much every working day - it was even my main programming editor of choice for many years.

15 again (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40894885)

Ah, to be 15 again.

(You have no clue what CDE is or what era it comes from, do you?)

Re:15 again (1)

segedunum (883035) | about 2 years ago | (#40894979)

He doesn't need to. I know where it comes from and even used it and it still looks like crap.

Re:15 again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40895197)

I agree. I'm totally familiar with it, but even at the time I thought it looked inferior to windows 3.1 (which was around about the same time I was using CDE).

Re:15 again (3, Insightful)

IntlHarvester (11985) | about 2 years ago | (#40895299)

Yep, that pastel color scheme may have looked really high-tech during the Reagan administration, but even by the mid-1990s it was seemed like a museum piece.

However it's too bad the source code wasn't released back in the 1990s, people could have modernized the look and possibly avoided much of the KDE versus Gnome nonsense.

Re:That looks... (1)

Meeni (1815694) | about 2 years ago | (#40895297)

At the time, it was the prettiest of all. I mean it was so much better than XT or Athena.

Re:That looks... (1)

Angrywhiteshoes (2440876) | about 2 years ago | (#40895505)

CDE is why I use Fluxbox. It's so bare-bones and easy to use. I really like the right-click menu as opposed to an icon menu or any other menu scheme.

There's a lot about it that is actually really good. Not everyone needs Compiz and other effects layered on their desktop.

Re:That looks... (1)

Eravnrekaree (467752) | about 2 years ago | (#40895683)

actually i like the clean look of CDE and the fact it uses a fraction of the memory of all of your modern desktops with the memory hogging graphics and disgusting, nauseating, and ugly aqua themes.

AH AH AH AH (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40894645)

AH! Ah! Ah! Ah!
CDE open sourced now ?
Nowadays it is only of interest to historians.

Re:AH AH AH AH (5, Funny)

Ginger Unicorn (952287) | about 2 years ago | (#40894653)

Is that the Count from sesame street having an orgasm?

Re:AH AH AH AH (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40895037)

Obligatory [youtube.com] video. NSFW (lol)

Re:AH AH AH AH (3, Insightful)

jockm (233372) | about 2 years ago | (#40894751)

And people who have legacy apps who use Motif. This is a good move for those, and the people who need to support them.

And Historians, don't discount that. Engineers have short memories and we are loosing important artifacts all the time...

Re:AH AH AH AH (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40894955)

We only loose them if they were tighter than specification to begin with.

(Seriously, why is the lose/loose typo so damned common here? I see it more than mixing up its/it's or there/their/they're.)

Re:AH AH AH AH (1)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about 2 years ago | (#40895729)

We only loose them if they were tighter than specification to begin with.

(Seriously, why is the lose/loose typo so damned common here? I see it more than mixing up its/it's or there/their/they're.)

Well, its because if you give people free reign, they loose their lose change.

Re:AH AH AH AH (1)

Art Challenor (2621733) | about 2 years ago | (#40894975)

Engineers have short memories and we are loosing important artifacts all the time...

I'm sure there's a comment about the primary use of the Internet lurking in there somewhere, but I can't remember what it is.

Re:AH AH AH AH (1)

serialband (447336) | about 2 years ago | (#40895199)

Engineers have short memories and we are loosing important artifacts all the time...

If they were setting them loose, then we wouldn't be losing them.

Re:AH AH AH AH (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40895661)

we are loosing important artifacts all the time

You mean like the ability to tell the difference between "loose" (to let go of or make less tight) and "lose" (to misplace or not be able to find)?

Re:AH AH AH AH (5, Informative)

ILongForDarkness (1134931) | about 2 years ago | (#40894919)

It is still used for some things. For example Philips Pinnacle radiation therapy planning system uses Sun/CDE and sells for 80k a pop ~1-2M for a typical sized cancer centre to have a dozen or so stations). Yes it is ugly, but it works and saves people in highly regulated industries from having to rewrite a crapload of things and suffer through FDA, few generations of serious bugs (always bugs but when you change widget framework/potentially OS flavor you are asking for it) etc.

Re:AH AH AH AH (1)

segedunum (883035) | about 2 years ago | (#40895007)

It is still used for some things. For example Philips Pinnacle radiation therapy planning system uses Sun/CDE and sells for 80k a pop ~1-2M for a typical sized cancer centre to have a dozen or so stations).

That's why CDE is being open sourced now. It's just a means for the Unix vendors to keep these expensive applications going. They have no real interest in getting out of the 80s/90s.

Re:AH AH AH AH (1)

AchilleTalon (540925) | about 2 years ago | (#40895621)

Well, if you don't change anything by fear of introducing a bug. Where is the need for CDE to become open since you won't even change the code using it? I believe the thing is only legal. The providers are just trying to throw this monster away from them because they need to provide, on paper, some kind of support for it for a period of time that extend beyond the actual life of the thing for a very narrow range of customers.

I remember that IBM was obligate to support AIX 1.2 on its PS/2 workstations for at least 25 years because they won a contract for the US aerial control system (I don't remember exactly the name, I am not living in USA). So, even if nobody no longer is having a PS/2 and AIX PS/2 never got a significant market share, there was eventually a 1.3 version for this only purpose. So, I imagine freeing the source code is a way to handle this kind of situations these days.

Re:AH AH AH AH (1)

ILongForDarkness (1134931) | about 2 years ago | (#40895823)

I think you are right on there. Open sourcing things sometimes is just a matter of saying "hey we don't want to be responsible for this anymore it's been ~20 years now it is your turn". Supporting something that has little in the way of generating new press releases with shinny new toys that draw new revenue is just a cost centre.

Re:AH AH AH AH (5, Funny)

hjf (703092) | about 2 years ago | (#40894941)

1. Create ugly environment
2. ???
3. Profit
4. Become irrelevant
5. Open source it

Re:AH AH AH AH (1)

AchilleTalon (540925) | about 2 years ago | (#40895481)

Don't you meant paleontologists?

Kiss of death. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40894665)

Now this has no chance of ever catching on. Yay, you can compile it yourself. But not on your parent's computer.

CDE = Common Desktop Environment (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40894667)

Environment, not Project. CDE, not CDP.

Xtreme Kool Letterz (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#40894741)

So what does that make KDE Plasma Desktop? The Kommunist [tvtropes.org] Desktop Environment?

small missing bit of information (4, Interesting)

Trepidity (597) | about 2 years ago | (#40894669)

"CDE was created by a collaboration of Sun, HP, IBM, DEC, SCO, Fujitsu and Hitachi" in 1993. It's interesting historically, but even commercial Unices have phased it out. Sun dumped it from Solaris ten years ago.

Open-sourcing Motif at least makes it easier to maintain some legacy apps, though sucks for the LessTif [sourceforge.net] guys that they put so much work into cloning it that could've been avoided if Motif had been open-sourced years ago.

CDE and LessTif are both LGPL, but v2 vs. v3? (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#40894705)

CDE is now distributed under the LGPL. So is LessTif. But as I lack the time to download and evaluate both, are there any v2 vs. v3 blockers that would get in the way of a merger between the projects?

Re:CDE and LessTif are both LGPL, but v2 vs. v3? (5, Informative)

LizardKing (5245) | about 2 years ago | (#40895189)

LessTif is the (buggy, unmaintained, incomplete) equivalent of Motif. CDE was a dekstop environment that built on top of Motif, providing a kind of task bar and various applications. The only app that Motif provided was a window manager. KDE started as an attempt to provided something similar to CDE, but under an open source license and built on top of the C++ based Qt widget set. Just to confuse things, Qt was open source, but could not be independently distributed with modifications. This licensing quirk, and a preference for C amongst some developers, prompted the creation of the GNOME project to create an alternative desktop environment built on top of the GTK+ widget set. GTK+ had started life as a toolkit for the GIMP image manipulation program - which to take things full circle, was initially written with the Motif toolkit.

Re:CDE and LessTif are both LGPL, but v2 vs. v3? (2, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 years ago | (#40895767)

CDE would run kind of OK on pretty old machines, so maybe it will enjoy a renaissance. But probably not.

Motif being released for free is way more exciting than CDE. I actually paid for CND back in the day to get a Motif license...

Re:small missing bit of information (1)

pscottdv (676889) | about 2 years ago | (#40894745)

Sun dumped it from Solaris ten years ago.

I was just going to say that they're only about 10 years too late!

Re:small missing bit of information (3, Interesting)

Eravnrekaree (467752) | about 2 years ago | (#40895727)

You could use CDE today, Why not? It uses a fraction of the memory and is still completely functional. The age of something has no impact on its usefulness. If someone likes to use CDE, it doesnt matter how old it is. Many people like CDEs modern solid coloured graphics over the nuasiating aqua themes and memory hogging 3d nonsense. It is often the case that newer software is worse. Back when CDE was written, programmers were much more careful since they had to be to make something that was memory efficient. Nowadays everyone is sloppy and lazy today leading to buggy memory wasting software.

Re:small missing bit of information (2)

Gordonjcp (186804) | about 2 years ago | (#40895881)

You'd have to completely rewrite it from scratch, possibly using something like Cairo, for it to work at a tolerable speed on modern hardware. CDE expects everything to be a flat unaccelerated bitplane. It's slow as hell.

15 years too late. (3, Informative)

iguana (8083) | about 2 years ago | (#40894699)

Open Sourcing CDE? Seriously? Would have possibly made a difference in 1998. But now? Except for historical interest, there's no point.

Was a so-so environment on HP-UX back in the day. Gloriously ugly.

Re:15 years too late. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40895021)

That's opportunism for you: when it's not worth shit open source it to gain some free recognition for your brand.

Re:15 years too late. (1)

noldrin (635339) | about 2 years ago | (#40895561)

I heavily used the Motif Window Manager in 96 and 97 when I was using Digital Unix. It was a nice improvement from TWM. I would have liked it on Linux, but FVWM was good enough. I doubt this will get me to switch back.

Re:15 years too late. (1)

DdJ (10790) | about 2 years ago | (#40895647)

Historical interest is worthwhile.

Plus, this allows the possibility of open-sourcing additional software that was built on top of this stuff back in the day. In the late 80s and early 90s, I worked on library automation software, and the Unix version of it was built on top of the libraries that were part of CDE. That code can in theory now be dusted off and released.

Re:15 years too late. (2)

Eravnrekaree (467752) | about 2 years ago | (#40895747)

You are wrong. Many people would like to use CDE because onlike modern stuff it does not use a lot of memory. Everything old is new again. CDE works fine and there is no reason someone could not use it.

a little on the antiquated side (1)

ronpaulisanidiot (2529418) | about 2 years ago | (#40894735)

this looks like the same CDE i used on a sun workstation a couple decades ago. it was a nice gui, though; perhaps it will be touched up to modern standards?

Oh good. (2)

Jethro (14165) | about 2 years ago | (#40894753)

Wow. CDE is one of those things that... yeah, it was better than the nothing or the OpenWindows we had before it... kinda... but has there been anything done with it that's in any way an improvement to anything going on today? Or in the past decade?

Same with MOTIF. It used to be the only game in town, but we have stuff like gtk and qt now. Are these things even relevant anymore?

Re:Oh good. (1)

FranTaylor (164577) | about 2 years ago | (#40895675)

Are these things even relevant anymore?

Motif was modernized to use the new X font mechanism while maintaining compatibility.

There are other relatively minor steps that can be taken that will dramatically improve the visual experience.

The compelling advantage of this, is a code base that runs well on 30 MHz SPARC machines of 1993. Just imagine how snappy it would run on a Raspberry Pi.

Re:Oh good. (2)

Eravnrekaree (467752) | about 2 years ago | (#40895763)

The fact it is not GTK and not modern desktops loaded down with hundreds of megabytes of graphics is its appeal. I think people want to use it becasue it is not modern and that it does things the old way, like, not using 100s of megabytes. Not everyone wants to spend tons of memory on some poorly written Gnome UI so they can have some ugly looking graphics.

Yeah Windows 3.1 for *nix! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40894767)

Welcome back to 1991 everyone! We hope you really like our old style interface on your futuristic *nix...who needs that moden look and feel anyway,

Re:Yeah Windows 3.1 for *nix! (2)

Chrisq (894406) | about 2 years ago | (#40894835)

Welcome back to 1991 everyone! We hope you really like our old style interface on your futuristic *nix...who needs that moden look and feel anyway,

This is just one step. Next month they will release a raw X interface where everything has to be launched from the command line.

Re:Yeah Windows 3.1 for *nix! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40895067)

This is just one step. Next month they will release a raw X interface where everything has to be launched from the command line.

Please do, I'd love to use such an interface.

Captcha: madder.

Re:Yeah Windows 3.1 for *nix! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40894951)

It's still better than Canonical's Poonity or Metrosexual from Micro$hit.

'BOUT TIME (1)

andydread (758754) | about 2 years ago | (#40894839)

What the hell took them so long. I remember using CDE on GenRAD test stations way back in 1994-95 and wished it would run on linux then FVWM95 came out and I never looked back

Nice (0)

benjfowler (239527) | about 2 years ago | (#40894853)

This looks like a calculated corporate "FUCK YOU" from the big corporations to the Open Source community.

Firstly, they habitually dump old and crap software onto the "community" when they're wrung any remaining possibility of profit out of a given product, and want to freeload off the Open Source community to "pay" for maintenance.

Secondly, it's an insult to the developers who've been working their butts off on alternatives like Lesstif, when CDE should've been free in the first place.

How cynical, and what a way to disrespect the community.

Re:Nice (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40894897)

Buh? The open sourcing of this was pursued by an external volunteer. It's purely for historical interest. I don't see how opening it is a disrespect to the "community" more than keeping it closed and letting it fester further.

Re:Nice (1)

segedunum (883035) | about 2 years ago | (#40895073)

Buh? The open sourcing of this was pursued by an external volunteer. It's purely for historical interest. I don't see how opening it is a disrespect to the "community" more than keeping it closed and letting it fester further.

This is not just being done by an 'external volunteer' and there is nothing historical about it, I can assure you. A lot of insanely expensive applications still run on a CDE/Motif environment and I can only see this as a way of maintaining the status quo on Unix platforms. We still haven't got out of the 80s/90s.

Re:Nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40895123)

I can assure you that the whole process was set off by one guy, and most of the work to clean it up and release it has been done by that one guy. And he's just an enthusiast.

Re:Nice (1)

Eravnrekaree (467752) | about 2 years ago | (#40895797)

Wrong. Not everyone likes your ugly aqua UIs which gobble up 100s of megabytes. Actually CDEs user interface has a clearnnes which many like, in fact many like me prefer it because it does not look like modern UIs and prefer its appearance. You seem to think that if you don't like something that no one else could like it either, what an arrogant and idiotic way of thinking that everyone has the same preferences as you.

Re:Nice (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40895337)

As a matter of fact, this is the result of a very long and somewhat big petition: http://www.petitiononline.com/opencde/petition.html
1723 signatures.

See also: http://www.marutan.net/cde/

Hideous (1)

ericcc65 (2663835) | about 2 years ago | (#40894867)

The ugliest desktop I have ever used or laid my eyes on. I remember in college trying with all my might to compile, install, and run Blackbox on the computer lab HP-UX machines without root just to avoid the hideousness of CDE. I'm sure it was fine when it came out but I don't see the point to this now.

Incidentally, does anyone remember when XFCE came out I thought it was initially billed as an open source version of CDE. Of course it's gotten much better and is actually my primary desktop. I might be misremembering that though.

XFCE (was Re:Hideous) (1)

dskoll (99328) | about 2 years ago | (#40894915)

Yes, XFCE initially looked very CDE-like. In fact, that's why I started using it: I was using CDE on Solaris at work and wanted a similar desktop at home so I wouldn't have to make the mental switch between desktops.

XFCE evolved and (as you say) kept getting better, so I kept it as my desktop.

Does anyone still use CDE? (2)

overshoot (39700) | about 2 years ago | (#40894939)

I think the last system I saw with CDE on it was a Sun desktop about ten years ago. Since the same machine also had KDE installed, I CDE might have been removed at some point and I wouldn't have known.

Re:Does anyone still use CDE? (1)

disi (1465053) | about 2 years ago | (#40895095)

HP-UX CAD workstations use it, last seen ~3 years ago...

Novell (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40895605)

I forget where exactly it is, but Novell's stuff still requires CDE. I think it's a dependency in their ConsoleOne install, but it may have been another of their packages like GroupWise 2012.

Full Circle (1)

segedunum (883035) | about 2 years ago | (#40894953)

So, I take it we've come full circle with Unix desktops and we're right back to where we started? I can only ask myself why this has happened after all this time and inactivity and I can only think that CDE is making a comeback amongst all the ex-CDEers. They just want some basic crap they can pass off a a graphical environment.

CDE? Ewww... (1)

ilsaloving (1534307) | about 2 years ago | (#40895089)

I remember having that as the default desktop when I first got my account at university. One of the first things I did was replace it with something else because it was so frustrating.

At least now that it's open source, someone may find some small gem of code in the base that is genuinely useful and can be ported to another project.

Re:CDE? Ewww... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40895139)

KTH, Stockholm, ~10 years ago?

Hooray! More life for old systems! And new! (4, Interesting)

emil (695) | about 2 years ago | (#40895103)

In its time, CDE was a reasonably fast desktop environment on a 75 MHz processor. CDE and Dillo would be great for the DSL/Puppy crowd.

CDE also includes a Korn shell ('93 version) that Novell hacked with Motif extensions. Everybody should start bundling that, assuming that the licensing is reasonable. It would be a great addition to pdksh, and is hands-down better than bash.

DSL/Puppy crowd??? (1)

logicassasin (318009) | about 2 years ago | (#40895495)

I've been running customized DSL implementations on my older PC's as well as the odd Puppy VM for a while now and JWM is quite fine for these mini distros (as is Flux/OpenBox which both include).

I used it (1)

blind biker (1066130) | about 2 years ago | (#40895115)

I used it, as "early" as 2003, on HP-UX. Not sure what happened to HP-UX after that, our projects switched mostly to Solaris, which also had CDE but soon switched to Gnome.

Let me be the first to say: GOOD JOB (5, Interesting)

tstrunk (2562139) | about 2 years ago | (#40895155)

So many negative posts here. So let me be the first to say: Good job!

It's very good they open source it, even if only for legacy apps (Motif). The open-source code base for CDE is also nice to have in Patent lawsuits for prior art mining. It's nice they went out of their way to clear the legal issues, now that no money can be made anymore with either.

So thanks to the Open Group!

Re:Let me be the first to say: GOOD JOB (5, Insightful)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 years ago | (#40895215)

The open-source code base for CDE is also nice to have in Patent lawsuits for prior art mining.

Yeah but not very useful without the full commit history so dating the prior art would be problematic.

interesting file manager. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40895267)

It seems to left justify file/directory names, and rather than putting a very airy box around a selection, it makes sure it lassos only the relevant bits.

Also, didn't XFCE mimic CDE in its earlier defaults? In particular the dock/launcher and how windows minimize to the desktop.

Submitter/Documentation Lead (5, Informative)

christurkel (520220) | about 2 years ago | (#40895347)

I'm the submitter and documentation lead for the CDE project and I'll answer any questions you might have.

1. CDE wasn't open sourced years ago because The Open Group had a steady income stream from it. Losing that income stream would have meant people losing their jobs.

2. This The Open Group's CDE, without any code from Sun/HP/IBM.

3. Motif will be open sourced soon. We couldn't get contributor agreements from everyone so that's still to do. CDE builds with OpenMotif just fine.

4. A FreeBSD port is in progress

Re:Submitter/Documentation Lead (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40895385)

Is there any possibility of getting the full commit history or is that information just not available? It would be interesting from a historical perspective to see the evolution.

Re:Submitter/Documentation Lead (1)

christurkel (520220) | about 2 years ago | (#40895433)

I don't think so but I can ask,

Re:Submitter/Documentation Lead (1)

LizardKing (5245) | about 2 years ago | (#40895543)

Hi Chris, Thanks for the information. Do you know if The Open Group continued to work on the Motif code after it was partially open sourced as OpenMotif? In other words, are their likely to be changes in The Open Group code that aren't in the 2.3.3 version of OpenMotif that ICS maintain? I assume that The Open Group provided a reference implementation of Motif and CDE to companies like Sun and HP, and that these companies then made their own modifications as they ported it to operating systems like Solaris and HP-UX. Presumably theses changes would have been fed back and assigned to The Open Group, so only minor differences are likely to exist between the current reference implementation and those that were distributed in binary form by the Unix vendors themselves.

Re:Submitter/Documentation Lead (1)

christurkel (520220) | about 2 years ago | (#40895677)

I am not aware of any changes to Motif that wasn't released in OpenMotif. CDE is a different story and it's highly unlikely the Open Group got any vendor specific changes back.

Re:Submitter/Documentation Lead (1)

FranTaylor (164577) | about 2 years ago | (#40895629)

I know Motif has modern font support, but is there any roadmap for support of modern rendering? The look could be much more modern and stylish without breaking APIs...

Re:Submitter/Documentation Lead (1)

grantingram (843202) | about 2 years ago | (#40895807)

Congratulations on the release. I actually remember CDE with some fondness, the future may be bright but the past definately had a biege or an off-vomit purple tint to it....

Better than GNOME 3 (5, Funny)

Alex Belits (437) | about 2 years ago | (#40895391)

I really hate to say it, but CDE, the clunkiest desktop environment in the history of computing, is still better than GNOME 3.

Re:Better than GNOME 3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40895691)

Mod parent +1

Ah nostalgia (1)

akerasi (1076913) | about 2 years ago | (#40895443)

CDE was the desktop enviro on the Sun workstations I used in college. I may have to download it and use it just for nostalgia's sake... and, that sort of thing is probably the only useful thing about this release.

Wow, only 15 years too late to matter at all (1)

aussersterne (212916) | about 2 years ago | (#40895507)

(if we are generous about things).

I would have killed for CDE on Linux in 1996. But now?

What could possibly be the point? And Motif next? Seriously?

Wow (2)

StefanWiesendanger (687733) | about 2 years ago | (#40895555)

Woohoo, this is great news! Ah wait... it's 2012, not 1999...

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40895613)

Looks like someone dipped into amiga's workbench 2.0 lunchbox and stole the scraps

Back in the day... (1)

glrotate (300695) | about 2 years ago | (#40895607)

This headline would have gotten 2000 replies.

Derek Smart's Desktop Commander (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40895627)

If there is one application we need to Open Source, it is Derek Smart's Desktop Commander!

Really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40895635)

Who cares.

It's like stepping back into 1997 (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about 2 years ago | (#40895651)

Complete with being hosted on source forge. They should have done this a long time ago.

What about releasing OSF1? (1)

Al Kossow (460144) | about 2 years ago | (#40895725)

OSF1 and DCE would be of more interest than CDE/Motif at this point.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...