Nokia Engineers on KHTML 98
Rich writes "KDE could soon be making its way into your mobile phone. At aKademy in August David Carson and Deepika Chauhan from Nokia presented the work they've done in integrating KDE components into the latest version of the company's mobile phone software. Philip Rodrigues discusses this work with them on dot.kde.org."
KHTML? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Cool... BUT (there's always a BUT) (Score:3, Insightful)
Another feature to run down the battery... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Warning (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously. When new to linux, and browsing through the huge garbage pile that is the "available list" of the package manager, finding something with the destinctinve "K" is really helpful, because they usually work and at least partly follow the same usability conventions.
Case in point: i couldnt even EXIT that damn vi before reading 5 minutes into the damn man file without kill-9ing the PID, but luckily a "Kedit" in the corresponding cathegory was available, completely usable
Re:Why do all this free work for ONE company? (Score:5, Insightful)
Um, what? Porting KDE components to TrollTech's platforms? KDE has always been based on TrollTech's Qt toolkit.
Furthermore, it clearly adds value to KDE; the quality of the Qt toolkit really shows. Compare the quality of KHTML and Gecko sometime. KHTML's faster, uses less resources, and implements the W3C specifications better (it passes the Acid2 test, implements things like DOM2 mutation events, etc, some of which are a *long* way off in Gecko - Acid2 fixes aren't even planned yet). And yet the KHTML developers have accomplished this with a fraction of the resources available to Mozilla.org. Much the same comparisons can be made between KOffice and OpenOffice.
The difference is that Qt is GPLed, so all the proprietary license fees would be paying for development of Free Software, and would directly benefit Free Software like KDE.
You can fork Qt whenever you want.
All contributors to Qt have all the freedoms granted by the GPL.
Re:Why do all this free work for ONE company? (Score:2, Insightful)
This horse has been beaten to death several times before, either you are trolling or simply very ignorant.
QT is GPL'd you are free to fork at any time, if you dont believe me go read the f***ng license yourself.
Re:Why do all this free work for ONE company? (Score:5, Insightful)
What is the problem here? TrollTech offers their product under the GPL. They also offer it under a proprietary license. They don't force anyone to use their toolkit, and you are free to fork the toolkit anytime you want to. So what is the problem here? Why is it bad to offer software under the GPL?
Qt is licensed under the GPL. I really fail to see how they could "monopolize" anything. or are you worried what would happen if Linux "monopolized" the OS-market? or if Red Hat "monopolized" Linux-market? Since the product (Qt, Linux or Red Hat) are GPL'ed, there will be no "monopolization" in the sense as would happen with Microsoft for example.
So I shouldn't offer any bug-reports to the kernel-folks, because that might make the product a bit better, and some company might earn some money through it?
Seriously, am I in the Twilight Zone or something? People are complaining when some company offerws kick-ass software under the GPL?
Re:Another feature to run down the battery... (Score:3, Insightful)
So I call bullshit on your comment.
Re:Cool... BUT (there's always a BUT) (Score:3, Insightful)
2. This is why the standard MIT SHM extension exists. When the client and server are on the same machine, the bitmap memory can be shared between client and server