| |||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
Q1 2005 VaporwareQ1 2005 VaporwarePosted Jul 9, 2004 3:37 UTC (Fri) by huffd (guest, #10382)Parent article: Qt 4 technology preview release Just goes to show you there is nothing about QT that is Open Source. Even their marketing mimics Microsoft. Talking about something that isn't due for three quarters. But..I understand how it is, they want to keep the interest up because the shareholders are clamoring for some sort of ROI and wish to recoup their R&D investments with those runtime license fees all those commercial companies are standing in line for.
(Log in to post comments)
Q1 2005 Vaporware Posted Jul 9, 2004 3:49 UTC (Fri) by arcticwolf (guest, #8341) [Link] Yeah, they're just like Microsoft - an evil cooperation that wants to (*gasp!*) make money, and dares to desecrate the ideals of Free Software by releasing Qt under the GPL.Congrats, you just made an idiot of yourself.
Q1 2005 Vaporware Posted Jul 9, 2004 4:17 UTC (Fri) by kurtb149 (guest, #15765) [Link] I must agree. QT is completely Open Source. Since the download is availible *now*, it is Ware, not Vaporware. It is, in fact, the exact opposite of Vaporware.
Q1 2005 Vaporware Posted Jul 9, 2004 9:48 UTC (Fri) by jeroen (subscriber, #12372) [Link] QT is completely Open SourceCan you give me a link where I can get the Open Source win32 library? Because AFAIK QT on win32 is still proprietary and thus QT isn't completely Open Source. Only the X11 version is (and the Mac version IIRC).
Q1 2005 Vaporware Posted Jul 9, 2004 10:59 UTC (Fri) by hingo (subscriber, #14792) [Link] Yeah! The lack of good Windows apps and libraries is what truly irritates us Free Software zealots!Freud would say you are behaving like an idiot, because Gnome has a small penis.
Q1 2005 Vaporware Posted Jul 9, 2004 12:26 UTC (Fri) by busterb (subscriber, #560) [Link] Here. Or you can buy the book and get QT for free
Q1 2005 Vaporware Posted Jul 9, 2004 16:14 UTC (Fri) by jeroen (subscriber, #12372) [Link] And where is the source for this?
Q1 2005 Vaporware Posted Jul 15, 2004 10:18 UTC (Thu) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link] And if anybody wants to rebuild my source, they need to buy that book as well, right?
Q1 2005 Vaporware Posted Jul 9, 2004 13:21 UTC (Fri) by elanthis (subscriber, #6227) [Link] You can get the GPL X11 source. Port it. ;-)
Q1 2005 Vaporware Posted Jul 11, 2004 21:34 UTC (Sun) by petegn (guest, #847) [Link] the answer to that one is quite simple really aint it CAN WINDbLOWS End of Problem so simple it's irritatingly untrue ...pete
Q1 2005 Vaporware Posted Jul 9, 2004 17:27 UTC (Fri) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link] That's the first time I've heard MS called a 'cooperation'... ;-) how ironic.
Q1 2005 Vaporware Posted Jul 9, 2004 4:19 UTC (Fri) by calc (guest, #22286) [Link] One of the reasons they likely released it early is so that KDE can actually start developing using it. KDE 3.3 is expected to be released in about a month then they will probably start work on KDE 4 which uses Qt 4.
Q1 2005 Vaporware Posted Jul 9, 2004 6:05 UTC (Fri) by aseigo (guest, #18394) [Link] > Talking about something that isn't due for three quarters.as calc said this is partly so that the KDE project (and others using Qt) can start learning the new/improved technologies for future releases. releasing Qt4 at this point in the dev cycle also allows those of us who use Qt to get involved with its development through testing and feedback at a point where its already useful if not finished. these are all pretty common traits amongst Open Source projects, contrary to your posting's implication. > the shareholders are clamoring for some sort of ROI seeing as Qt is a private company, i somehow doubt you know what the shareholders are clamoring for at all. it is likely safe to say that they DO want to see an ROI, and it's also likely safe to say that as Trolltech is profitable that they are realizing on that desire. > runtime license fees all those commercial companies Qt does not have a runtime license structure, with the exception of the QTopia embedded platform which can be licensed per hardware device it is shipped on. Qt itself is licensed per developer; no runtime anything, no royalty structure. Question: what bee in your bonnet causes you to be so ignorantly anti-Qt? i mean, i can understand people not liking Qt (or any other technology) for rational, factual reasons. but your reasons are complete hog-wash. how did you arrive at these conclusions, and what motivates you to spread them further? (just curious =)
Q1 2005 Vaporware Posted Jul 11, 2004 15:51 UTC (Sun) by foo-bar (guest, #22971) [Link] > Question: what bee in your bonnet causes you to be so ignorantly anti-Qt?> i mean, i can understand people not liking Qt (or any other technology) > for rational, factual reasons. but your reasons are complete hog-wash. how > did you arrive at these conclusions, and what motivates you to spread them > further? (just curious =) My theory: it's C++, and people tend to hate what they don't understand.
and ... Posted Jul 11, 2004 20:52 UTC (Sun) by piman (subscriber, #8957) [Link] ... absolutely no one understands C++. :)
Q1 2005 Vaporware Posted Jul 15, 2004 10:32 UTC (Thu) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link] > > the shareholders are clamoring for some sort of ROI> > seeing as Qt is a private company, i somehow doubt you > know what the shareholders are clamoring for at all. The shareholders are VCs. They do want ROI, but generally have more patients. > Question: what bee in your bonnet causes you to be so Any discussion of QT and the company producing it is simply trolling. Would you expect any rational discussion?
Q1 2005 Vaporware Posted Jul 10, 2004 0:22 UTC (Sat) by pointwood (subscriber, #2814) [Link] Troll alert - ignore...
|
|||||||||||