| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
UserLinux Moves ForwardUserLinux Moves ForwardPosted Feb 5, 2004 10:53 UTC (Thu) by alonso (subscriber, #2828)Parent article: UserLinux Moves Forward
I think not including KDE and QT is simply a big mistake that will bring this project nowhere. Every firm that develop commercial software on linux use QT: MainActor, TheKompany..... And now pixar cite QT as a competitive advantage!!!!
(Log in to post comments)
UserLinux Moves Forward Posted Feb 5, 2004 14:19 UTC (Thu) by gallir (guest, #5735) [Link] OOo in GTK? Which one?
UserLinux Moves Forward Posted Feb 5, 2004 15:49 UTC (Thu) by alonso (subscriber, #2828) [Link] I was meaning GTK in StarOffice/OpenOffice. But I'm no more sure of the use of GTK in OOo, my mistake :(
UserLinux Moves Forward Posted Feb 5, 2004 19:30 UTC (Thu) by gallir (guest, #5735) [Link] Yes, I understood, AFAIK there is no a line of GTK code in the officialOOo.
UserLinux Moves Forward Posted Feb 5, 2004 15:26 UTC (Thu) by hazelsct (guest, #3659) [Link] It is indeed ironic, as you point out, that although the LGPL licensing of the GTK+/GNOME libraries would seem to encourage proprietary software development, it seems that there is quite a bit more such software for Qt/KDE. I'd add to your list the Corel/Xandros file manager, Lindows' Click-and-Run, and SUSE's YaST2 and package manager as significant pieces of proprietary software for Qt/KDE.On the other hand, there seems to be quite a bit more commercial development of free software for GNOME. From RedHat, to AbiSource, to the ill-fated Eazel, to Ximian before and after its purchase by Novell, to Sun with its "Java desktop", it's interesting to note that all of these companies have invested and continue to pour significant resources into GNOME infrastructure and applications -- and then given them all away under free licenses like the GPL and LGPL. I know of zero proprietary file/package/configuration managers, office programs, or for that matter any proprietary software at all for GNOME (with the possible exception of GNOME support added to Kylix as an afterthought). I would therefore agree with you that despite the licensing differences, there is empirical evidence for Qt/KDE being a more hospitabile environment for proprietary software development. Which makes UnitedLinux' "licensing" rationalization for choosing GNOME all the more baffling. Not to mention the inherent contradiction between "We want to encourage a free desktop" and "We want to encourage proprietary applications". OTOH, IMHO such evidence makes GNOME the better desktop to contribute to, as those contributions will more likely be followed up by commercial investments in free software, resulting in less incentive to deal with the myriad problems associated with proprietary apps. Which is a very different thing from what UnitedLinux is saying.
Encouraging a free desktop, but proprietaryware apps Posted Feb 11, 2004 9:30 UTC (Wed) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link] > the inherent contradiction between "We want> to encourage a free desktop" and "We want to > encourage proprietary applications". This baffles me too. It would seem to me that the KDE/QT solution is the best choice possible. 1) It is available GPL, for those wishing to support free software. 2) The QT portion, at least, can be licensed for proprietary-ware use, at a reasonable cost. This is a good thing because it provides both nominal incentive to develop free, which we SHOULD be encouraging, and an alternative if folks are going proprietary-ware anyway, at a quite reasonable but non-zero cost. 3) For those with the budgets, as mentioned elsewhere in the discussion, QT is a product in its own right, with full documentation and support available, for those commercial entities that prefer that sort of thing over the vagaries of typical open source support, as some commercial enterprises seem to, whether our practical experience demonstrates those same vagaries result in better, speedier, and more substancial "on the ground" support, or not. Of course, QT != KDE, and the QT commercial licensing possibilities != KDE commercial licensing possibilities either. KDE as a platform is *NOT* available for proprietary use, AFAIK , which means if KDE is chosen as a platform, those wishing to build on top of it for proprietary use must either be content with the limited integration of the QT base libraries (or choose non-integration at that level all together), or switch to GPL compatable licensing for use of the full KDE platform. Again, I have absolutely NO problem with that. I didn't switch to Linux and software libre after spending a decade on MSWormOS and proprietary-ware just so I could go back to using proprietary-ware in a different form. NO WAY!! I haven't the faintest sympathy with those wanting to use open code but prevented from legally doing so because they refuse to open their OWN code. However, it seems Perens, who is after all the big mover behind UserLinux, has other ideals. Indeed, as the quote above states, it seems very much like he's caught by the double-talk of saying a free desktop is better, while all the while encouraging proprietary-ware apps. (Note that I'm not entirely anti-proprietary-ware. Folks can choose to keep their stuff proprietary if they so desire, and I realize some will. I just have no sympathy whatsoever with their moans and groans if the choose to do so, that they can't borrow code that isn't theirs to begin with, without having to share their own code on the same terms. Neither do I want ANY of my personal support, in any way, shape, or form, whether code, volunteer work, or money even to the penny, going to support those who would keep their own work proprietary. They choose to do it on their own, let them do just that, STAY on their own.) As for the desktop wars themselves, I've stated b4 and will state here again, my view is pretty simple. When Gnome/GTK gets the ability to do something as simple as choosing individual interface colors, instead of changing the entire theme, from a GUI based applet, as KDE can do with kcmshell colors, THEN I might consider taking it seriously as a desktop. Even the proprietary-ware MSWormOS has that! Unfortunately, it seems that while KDE has chosen a route of empowering the users with MORE choice, Gnome/GTK has decided to simplify even basic choices such as that out of the user's ability to make, altogether. I've seen some say that to much choice confuses the user and that they consider that one of the weaknesses of GNU/Linux as a platform. I simply can't agree, as again, if I was OK with some big corporate or developer entity making all my choices for me, I'd have never dumped a decade of MSWormOS and other proprietary-ware experience to switch to Linux and libre-ware. Duncan
UserLinux Moves Forward Posted Feb 7, 2004 12:57 UTC (Sat) by oak (guest, #2786) [Link] QT:The reason why those companies use Qt for their products instead of Gtk is that Qt itself is a *product*, unlike Gtk. Gtk is a project. What I mean by product is that you can buy / get one single package which includes the libraries, integrated documentation, integrated development environment, support etc.
Those companies are using Qt, not KDE. KDE is not a product for which one can buy an exclusive licence, it's only available under GPL license. KPart is a proprietary method whereas Gnome uses the CORBA standard.
KHTML and Mozilla (Gecko) are the only alternatives as full Open Source browser HTML engines and neither is a part of Qt nor Gtk. As to the reason why Apple chose KHTML over Mozilla, I don't know. :-)
UserLinux Moves Forward Posted Feb 7, 2004 14:57 UTC (Sat) by primorec (guest, #2740) [Link] As to the reason why Apple chose KHTML over Mozilla, I don't know. :-)speed and size
UserLinux Moves Forward Posted Feb 9, 2004 0:00 UTC (Mon) by lacostej (subscriber, #2760) [Link] >> As to the reason why Apple chose KHTML over Mozilla, I don't know. :-)> speed and size code size of the KHTML engine was 10% of Gecko's. Idel for maintenance. Easier to start with.
|
|
||||||||||||