Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
KDE GUI

Warwick Allison Of QT And KDE Fame 81

Posted by timothy from the telecommuting dept.
Konqi the Dragon points to this BeOpen interview with Warwick Allison of Troll Tech's Qt Library, writing: "Warwick is also a longtime KDE contributor with interesting things to say about GPL, QT Embedded, KDE, The Mythical Man Month, Distributed Development and scaling projects." If Warwick's words make you say "hmmm" (for whatever reason), you might also want to revisit earlier Slashdot stories about Embedded QT and Trolltech. [Updated noon GMT 10 July 2000 by timothy] Thanks to jdfox, who pointed out that I had perpetuated the misspelling of "Warwick" in the headline. Sorry, Warwick!
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Warrick Allison Of QT And KDE Fame More

Warrick Allison Of QT And KDE Fame

Comments Filter:
  • I think the efects (for the moment at least) will be greater on embedded devices, eg. ericson cellphones and the like running embedix or some such. Desktop Linux will eventually follow the market, I for one hope that desktops will be around at least untill wearables are eqaully powerfull, versatile, and most important - user programmable.

  • Open Source and Business (Score:3)

    by Whyte Wolf ( 149388 ) on Sunday July 09, 2000 @09:53PM (#946657) Homepage
    But when we wrote it, it was basically an advertisement for ourselves, a way of saying "Hey, look what I can do. I can do the same thing for you" to some company.

    Looks like Mister Allison isn't a big believer in business being able to make a profit from an OSS business model. I'm not sure this is a healthy thing for the OSS movement, especially when voiced by someone with some visibility like Warrick.

    Now, i can't naysay how he sees thing. Currently the money is definitly more likley to come from a company hiring an Open Source programmer who's got a good track record writing free software, but I'm hoping (and betting on) ESR's services-based model. Allison says it breeds non-user firendly code. Hogwash. Only if your company or programming team is unscrupulous or lazy.

    I am hoping that most leading OSS companies like VA and Red Hat don't fit into that particular category. We've all had enough of unscrupulous and lazy software companies. Or at least I have.

    So yeah, Warrick is right about why he got a job, but by saying that's the way it should work, he may be pronouncing self-fulfilling prophesy.

    I hope not. We all have too much to lose if OSS can't make the big leap to big business.

  • And the overall point being......? (Score:4)

    by Bowie J. Poag ( 16898 ) on Sunday July 09, 2000 @09:58PM (#946658) Homepage
    You know, i'd like to see some hard numbers as to just how many people have actually purchased a Qt License from Troll Tech.. And, more specifically, if that number is sufficiently large enough to really warrant keeping Qt something other than GPL'ed.

    The only thing standing in the way (as I see it) of KDE being the dominant desktop for Linux is this persistant, irritating, annoying, pointless debate over the nature of the Qt libraries. Its a boat anchor that has been dragged behind KDE for far, far too long. Get it over with, guys.

    Its only by pure luck that GNOME development has been centered more on building pointless foo-foo options as of late, rather can concentrating on basic usability issues. Both efforts have boat anchors. One has to do with politics, the other has to do with direction.

    Want KDE to win? Make Qt free. Game over.



    Bowie J. Poag
  • How can you critisize when Anonymous ? If your not willing to take the (very small) risk involved in registering, by implication you can't complain. Those who register get to moderate posts, and have theirs marked up for their trouble. Anyway you are wrong, slashdot is about what interests the geek comunity period. It is not a news site for open source it is a comunity site for geeks, which is the primary reason why I am a regular. And I (like most geeks I think, at least timothy for one) found this rather intriguing.
    Slashdot being a comunity, being registered is a litle like a green card, it is what makes you a part of the comunity and therefore gives you the right to complain about it. Right now you are like Al Bundy complaining about the French, your not one of us, and therefore your views don't count.
    If you are a registered user, who posted that anonymously, then quite frankly sir, you are a coward.

  • QT is QuickTime which is an apple product.

    This however is Qt which is in esscence a component set used to make nice looking X applications.

    Read the friendly interview.
    • Why Qt doesn't use the standard C++ std::string class? STANDARD GOOD, HOMEBREW BAD. Even a caveman knows it.
    • Likewise for containers.
    • When BiDi will be adequately supported? Hire someone who actually fcking speaks Hebrew/Arabic and can code in C++, finish the darn thing in no time, and bring peace and prosperity to the Middle fcking East! Ok, so forget about the peace and prosperity bit. I just can't stand Hebrew-ified Windows. They absolutely sux0r.

  • Just imagine for a moment that there's more than one "OSS business model". Heck, what Trolltech is doing now is an OSS business model, just different from what Red Hat.

    Whether one is better than the other is a different question, but I don't think you can deny the logic of Warwick's line of reasoning: we don't WANT to rely on programmer's being not "unscrupulous or lazy" (indeed, Larry Wall features "laziness" as one of the programmer's virtues ;-), if we could do that we could rely on offerings like Plan 9 "in the spirit in which they were given".

    As has been pointed out there, that's not acceptable. Why use a different measure here? Actually people critisized the early Qt Free Edition license for exactly this reason (resulting in the KDE Free Qt Foundation [trolltech.com]). Disregarding that earlier criticism now seems like desperately finding something "evil" about everything and everbody that has got to do with Qt in some way, shape or form...

  • Re:If only I could ask him... (Score:3)

    by Peter Putzer ( 72299 ) on Sunday July 09, 2000 @10:35PM (#946663) Homepage
    Because those weren't available on all platforms when Qt was written (it has always been cross platform, earlier versions had both macro- and template-based containers, for those compilers that didn't support templates back then).

    Besides, QString is UniCode (while std::string is not, since it's just std::basic_string) and reference counted, so you get a performance bonus as well.

    As for bidirectional scripts: there's some support in KDE I think, but as I don't speak any of the involved languages I'm not too sure about it, ask someone. Heck, write to Trolltech and ask them to pay you for writing it!

  • Sorry, I posted as "plain text", nonetheless <char> got omitted from

    std::basic_string<char>,

    sorry for that.

  • >Why Qt doesn't use the standard C++ std::string >class? STANDARD GOOD, HOMEBREW BAD. Even a >caveman knows it.
    Because the C++ string class handles plain
    old C-style Strings, while Qt's QString supports
    Unicode.
    Second, the implicit sharing used by Qt's QString makes string handling quite fast without doing manual optimization.
  • What problems are you speaking of?

    The only "problems" I know of are people arguing over perceived license conflicts, yet you implicitely compare KDE to Microsoft "throwing code at a project and no one knows what does what".

    If that's what you intended, it's slanderous and completely uncalled for, if not, please don't phrase things that way...
  • Well until now it has been that way. KDE has been used in most distributions as the default desktop, simply because KDE has been much more stable (than GNOME) and it has generally been more mature.

    The latest Helix GNOME changes a lot of that (IMNSHO: It's pretty cool) - but lets see what happens when KDE2 comes along later this year (September) - it looks pretty good.

  • What I'm curious about is how many Windows licenses they sell and why there can't be a free software version for this platform also. Abiword developers have stated they prefer developing for both of these OS's together, and so I have to wonder if other devolopers would release more Windows free software if QT would make a Windows free edition (granted Abisource still wouldn't have gone with QT).

    But perhaps it is not just money issues and there is code in this port that can't be made public. They don't seem to explain why in any of their FAQ's. (And no, I'm not interested in running X on top of Windows)
  • I actually agree with the sentiments of most of what you say, but whats this?:

    "... is because there's a relatively small number (7) of people working on it"

    Where on earth did you get that figure from? Have you ever read either the source code, the contributors list, or looked on lkml to see who submits patches? It is _far_ more than seven.

  • What's up with BeOpen lately, anyway? I've heard tales (I think from FC, but I'm not exactly sure) of their President leaving and that the company's now being run by VC angels, with some of the staff starting to leave. And, of course (in the current Internet economy), difficulties in getting any new funding. The main reason this is worrisome is because Guido van Rossum and the rest of the core Python development team just moved to BeOpen not even two months ago, and there's already been a good deal of slippage of release dates for the already overdue Python 1.6. I'm really hoping that Guido and the crew didn't board a sinking ship. Anyone have any info on this?

    Cheers,
    ZicoKnows@hotmail.com

  • Ok, I see why you couldn't use std::stuff. But the draft standart was already available I presume? So why not write Qt::String et. al. to the standard specs (amended/stripped down as necessary) in anticipation of the greatest thing since the sliced bread, The International Standard Of The C++ Language? They knew the standard is coming. They should have anticipated it.

    As for Unicode, one can make std::basic_string<unicode_t> for some appropriate definition of unicode_t. Granted, this is not guaranteed to work with all compilers, but then I don't know of one which would not support such a thing.

    Reference counting? Do you know that in multithreaded programs reference-counted strings (reference-counted copy-on-write (COW) anything, to be precise) can kill performance big time? Check here [lang.c.moderated] and/or here [comp.std.c], I forgot which.

    Bidirectional scripts: Qt can be compiled with BiDi. I actually bothered to check the code of 2.0.. It is lame, lame, lame. I didn't turn the darn switch on.

    Trolltech paying me for it? I doubt it somehow but I'll check it nevertheless. Man, I've got a project to finish, and a family to feed. And then Slashdot...but I digress...

  • >Want KDE to win? Make Qt free. Game over.

    IMHO - not so!

    Whether GNOME or KDE wins the "desktop war" (ie. which one will be used by the majority of the Linux users) has little to do with the license.

    The one who wins is the one who makes the best desktop.

    What is absolute most important thing that makes the best desktop? - The apps!

    Most people doesn't give a damn about whether the license is QPL or GPL - they just want the best applications, and if that is what KDE gives them, then they will choose KDE.
  • Look at the message, not the messenger.

    (btw, I'm not the one whom you're replying
    to)

  • wchar_t is what you're looking for, it's even in the standard.

    Problem: still not all compilers support the whole std:: library (for example gcc's stdc++-library is far from complete).

    And it would mean that a bug in a vendor's std:: library could lead to arbitrary behaviour in Qt (guess who would get the blame?). Oh, I'll shut up now and just quote from the FAQ [trolltech.com]:

    15. Why does not Qt use STL?

    The Standard Template Library, contrary to what the name implies, is not all that standardized (at least not yet); implementations differ, and some systems/compilers do not even have it yet. We prioritize very highly that Qt-based programs should be completely and easily portable across platforms and compilers, so we don't want to put STL-dependency in Qt until it is safe to do so.

    As for the string class, in Qt 2.0 there is a brand new QString class which is much more usable and efficient (using implicit sharing instead of explicit) than the 1.x QString, as well as covering internationalization through Unicode. The STL string is less usable and efficient.

    Still, it is no problem to use STL together with Qt, if you prefer. QStrings can easily be converted to STL strings and vice versa. Using the Qt tool classes (lists, stacks and so on) instead of the STL classes is optional, not obligatory.

  • You make some valid points, however my reason for encouraging registration has nothing to do with bigotry or statism.
    I simply feel that one should have sufficient courage (I hope that is the right word) to stand by the statements you make. Untill recently I used my real e-mail address even, so anybody who would like to chalenge me can have a fair chance to do so, offsite if needed, however I found that having my e-mail address publically displayed has but once lead to me recieving an e-mail regarding a post, but did get me spammed, for which I no longer cares. The other matter which I claimed, is that in a comunity your standing is developed over time, and without identity there is no way of doing that. I am an anti-class person, yet interestingly if Linuz Torvalds were to post something here, contradicting and AC post, I think he would be a lot more believable thant the AC even if he happens to be wrong. People begin to asociate your name with the usual quality (or lack thereoff) off your posts. I believe Slashdot should add a feature to block post from certain people, so I can turn beerbrain and penisbird off permanently.
    Sorry, I do believe that identiy need not imply class distinction, and that it is not class-distinction to reward continous quality with recognition, denying that is borderline socialism.

  • When I read posts like yours I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry at how religously people can take the decisions of other people.

    What Warrick Allison states is a very valid opinion which myself and many others have had. I've often asked myself, "if I was a developer working for a company whose livelihood depended on being able to sell support for the software I wrote wouldn't I be less motivated to write easy-to-use and bug free code as someone who worked for a company whose lifeline wasn't based on selling support contracts?"

    I've never been in that situation but from the attitudes of most OSS developers today usability isn't a key word they are interested in. Frankly I feel that the whole selling support concept only adds the current esoteric nature and general poor documentation of Open Source projects. Second question "Why spend time developing comprehensive training manuals, online help and documenting APIs if you are trying to get users to buy a support contract?". Laziness is a well documented trait of good programmers and bad ones as well, so why would one not expect that programmers would take the easy way out especially when it would be beneficial for their employer?

    PS: Exactly what do we have to lose if OSS doesn't make the leap to big business? I'm in it cuz I like it not for the IPO money, aren't you? I hope you realize that VA Linux is a hardware company that sells relatively overpriced servers which has nothing to so with making money on supporting OSS. VA Linux subsidizes its OSS forays by marking up their server prices, which to me seems like an alternate business model to ESRs.

    PPS: This isn't a troll, if you disagree, post a response instead of moderating this down and making this place seem more like a mad house for raving zealots instead of a forum for rational discussion.

  • wchar_t is what you're looking for, it's even in the standard.
    Nope. wchar_t is not Unicode, and never was. One can only hope it will be Unicode in some future standard.

    Besides, I don't mind if Qt doesn't use STL (which is not an officially standartized name of anything by the way). I just would like std::containers_and_stuff and Qt::containers_and_stuff to be as interchangeable as humanly possible. This means Qt stuff written to a subset of std interfaces. I can do without Qt containers, but strings... Boy, string classes just reproduce like rabbits. I know of about 14 that are supported in our organization alone -- all from different toolkits, and all should be convertible to each other. This is a major pain. Fortunately somebody else is responsible for that mess :)

  • I have a real problem with those that criticize AC's for being AC's. It's pretty fucking moronic in itself, and only helps to emphasize the fact that you have nothing to say. You're not better than anyone else because you took five minutes to get an ID, or because you visit the site so often that you feel you need one. Nor are you more welcome.

    No one needs me to tell them you're an idiot, though. All one needs to do is read your response to the first post of this article [slashdot.org].

    Your self-fellating babble about geeks would be more appropriate in the UF "geek groupie" forum. (In other words, you're lonely and came to Slashdot for acceptance, but have nothing to contribute. That's what the UF forum is for.) Get the fuck over yourself. You sound like Jon Katz, minus a hundred IQ points.

    Can you back up that Bundy/Slashdot analogy, by the way? I'd really like to know what kind of bizarre logic comes up with something like that. I didn't even think people that stupid could use Windows.

    (wink.)

    And if you were a more observant luser, you would realize that talking about Linux and Open Source that way only makes you look worse. You should thank me for pointing this out to you now, before you make a bigger fool of yourself.

    Now, please, I beg you to retort. Ignorance amuses me. You fell for two trolls within fifteen minutes, so I expect your reply to be especially amusing.

    ---------///----------

  • That's my motto. ;)

    ---------///----------

  • "Plain text" on Slashdot isn't so. Bold tags, italics tags, et cetera still work, and since there is no "<char>" tag in HTML, Slash just happily deleted it for you. :) The only major difference (in common practice) between Slashdot's "HTML Formatted" and "Plain Text" options is that your line breaks are automatically "<br>"-ified. If you want to retain the greater- and less-than symbols that you typed, you'll want to choose the "Extrans (html tags to text)" option. (Like I'm doing now, to avoid having to to &gt; and &lt; these examples. ;)

    Sort of confusing. I've never understood why they call it "plain text" when it obviously isn't. Usually, if you want what you and I think of as "plain text", choose "Extrans". And preview, of course. ;)

    ---------///----------

  • Open source money (Score:3)

    by TheCovenant ( 39122 ) on Monday July 10, 2000 @12:05AM (#946681)
    It is encouraging to see a success story about making money in the open source world. I believe that the industry should move towards open source as much as possible, and I completly understand how companies withstand the urge to go open source.

    I have planned on going the same route that the author took in my software developement career. I am planning on doing some development work on some open source projects as an experience and resume builder so that I can fill in the part that talks about experience on my resume. It is a perfect place for new programmers to gain useful experience programming, but I have concerns about a market that is totally open source.

    For all products to be open source is scarey. Now I know that open source doens't necesarily mean free. It means letting everyone know what your software is doing, possibly fixing it for their own use. This type of use is great. But what should a company do if they are making some true innovations. Release that software for the world to look at.

    For example, Oracle may or may not have the most scalable and fastest database. But lets say that their programmers have developed some new methods that enable there database server to be faster and more scalable than the competition. How do the open source gurus claim that opening that software up would help Oracle. This is precisely the part that I have yet to understand. It is the same as patenting a new device. It lets the inventor or inventing company protect there investment for awhile so that even doing the research to begin with is worth it. The patent gives the garantee that the innovation is protected.

    The article didn't help clarify my view of the issues with open source either. There method of dealing with the problem is by having some products open source and free and other products closed source and for sale. This doesn't really answer the question of how to deal with open source software and make money, unless this happens to be the final solution.

    For example, Microsft opens the source to DirectX, IE, etc.. but keeps the source on NT and Office. Of course, this isn't really the core of what they do, it would be like giving out some toys, but not the real thing. Do people think this is the answer to the open source questions, or do people really think everything can go open source?

  • I'd rather be employed to hack because I'm a good hacker than employed to document because I'm a bad documenter.

    --
    Warwick

  • Sorry to be pedantic, but may I point out that the Slashdot article copies BeOpen's title errors: his name is actually spelt "Warwick", like the town.
    And, er, like the singer, if that helps. :)

    Thanks.

    -
    j
  • > The only thing standing in the way (as I see it) of KDE being the dominant
    > desktop for Linux is this persistant, irritating, annoying, pointless
    > debate over the nature of the Qt libraries. Its a boat anchor that has been
    > dragged behind KDE for far, far too long. Get it over with, guys.

    And just who is it that whines and complains like spoilt children, thus causing "this persistent, irritating, annoying, pointless debate over the nature of the Qt libraries"? It's not the Qt people, and it's not the KDE people, it's a small group of the more zealous folk who refuse to use pragmatism when they've had a perfectly good library handed to them. No one at TrollTech had to make anything free for any use under any license; they were nice enough to let the Linux community, the KDE folks in particular, use their library for free, and for that they get continually villified and crucified here on /. by people who should know better than to bite the hand that feeds it. Because, next time, maybe a company will say "fuck those Linux people, why should we let them use our code when the last people who let them use theirs got raped every five minutes by complaints about not using the GPL; let them write their own stuff." TrollTech has been very nice to the Linux community by giving something of theirs which they had no obligation to give; they deserve to be treated nicely in return. What will make them more likely to GPL Qt, a nice reaction from a bunch of idealists trying to build a software utopia, or constant attacks by crazy zealots trying to cut a swath through the software community like a bunch of Huns sacking Rome? Try to be objective, and see how such behaviour appears to non-FSF types, and you'll realize that more is gotten with honey than with insults.

    I respect the FSF and RMS; I agree with 99% of what RMS says. However, I cannot agree that alienating people by attempting to force them to accept the GPL on their own works is a good thing. No matter the ends, no matter how positive, there can be no excuse whatsoever for employing the same sorts of tactics which unscrupulous corporations like Microsoft employ. It is unscrupulous to try to force or coerce or intimidate people into giving up their work; it is commendable to try to educate, to recruit, to the Free Software ideology.

    And as for the notion that licensing issues are what keeps KDE from being the dominant desktop, I don't buy it. Most end users, and the majority of the Linux community, aren't hung up so inextricably and single-mindedly on a very minor licensing issue--for all intents and purposes, Qt is good open-source free software. Not Free by the FSF's definition, but free in the more general open-source sense which divides RMS and the zealots from the moderates. In other words, the average user doesn't care about the Qt licensing issue, and the average company which puts together the CDs that those people will install, also doesn't care. And they don't have to care because it's a minor issue, and second for both the average user and the average company to the consideration as to which desktop is easier to use and more productive. That's KDE right now, though that could change with the next GNOME release or two. But, it's silly to think that the licensing issue is really holding KDE back, because it's not--it'll ward off some developers, but they'll have enough to not worry about it; I haven't seen any scarcities yet, have you? And as I said, the end user just wants something which is easy to use. That's what more people around here should keep in mind, because most people around here would like to see Linux become a dominant OS replacing mostly the need for Windows, Netware, etc., not shrink back into obscurity, and the more people engage in holy wars the further away that good future gets. Always remember that in any holy war, there are good people on both sides, and heavy casualties all around.
  • ...but new Slashdot UIDs are now over 200,000, so he's almost l337, right? The funny thing is, he's been here almost as long as I have, (which isn't saying much), but has apparently learned nothing.

    I actually find the UID/l337ness correlation quite interesting. For instance, while I am the first to admit that I have not been here long, I must look pretty l337 to someone who just got his UID, which is probably around 210,000. But I'm nowhere near as l337 as someone from below 50k. And the first 1,000 UIDs are practically godlike. LOL.

    (Hmmm, "datadictator" called himself a "regular" in a previous post, yet he's only been here about sixth months. But we already knew he was a poseur, right?)

    Non-AC's that diss AC's for being AC's are probably my biggest Slashdot pet-peeve (yes, even outranking ** syringe!). I used to have a very long rant about this in my user info. Maybe I should put it back.

    Keep on postin', noble AC...

    ---------///----------

  • Re:If only I could ask him... (Score:3)

    by Warwick Allison ( 209388 ) on Monday July 10, 2000 @12:33AM (#946686) Homepage
    You can ask me whenever you like.

    • Because many compilers supported by Qt are still not supported by libstdc++.
    • Ditto.
    • Already gnikcuf happening.
      • Those are the base reasons. There are arguable reasons why Qt doesn't use std::, such as "because std:wstring is non-standard and Qt uses Unicode".
  • Well, I'd say this interview really comes to a point not discussed too much. It's easy to be an extremist and say that everything should be open sourced and it's the solution to all world's software problems. The truth is different, however. Open source model works well and should be promoted in operating systems and hardware drivers plus a multitude of basic services (such as mail delivery, windowing system and GUI widget library). What I really can't see is what do hardware companies think, if they don't publish programming information or open source drivers for their products. That is a true win-win situation. They sell more hardware (they don't get any extra money for the drivers anyway) and the user is more safe with the thing - having the source means that you can always get someone port the drivers to your new system, if you have to change.
    When it comes to application software, things are a bit different. Most applications really should NOT be designed by programmers, but people that have to use them. Another thing with open sourced apps is that you have millions of apps for the same purpose, which all have their own flaws, if nothing else, then rapidly changing configuration files and incompatible support libraries. It's really annoying to find a new RPM of your favourite app, and notice you'll have to update half your system. Using sources does not usually help, because the source won't compile unless you update something. All this is relatively easy if you have a fast link at home, but...
    My conclusion: Open up OSes, drivers and services. That's what everybody owning a computer must have anyway. The companies would use their resources much more effectively in things that require usability study and involve large (complex) pieces of software.

    --End this crap.
  • MINOR? Only as minor as downloading warez copies of Windows. KDE IS ILLEGAL TO COPY. How much more major can you get than that?

    WTF are you talking about?

    Let's see...the KDE libraries are LGPL, so no problem there. kdebase and most of the other KDE packages are all written specifically for KDE and distributed as such by the KDE people, so it's kinda hard to argue that you aren't allowed to link them to Qt (or, to be exact, that implicit permission hasn't been given---assuming that it's even needed which is rather debateable for dynamically linked executables). Or do you really think that people writing free software for Qt would try to deny you the ability to distribute binaries?

    So, what's left? Ah yes, kghostview, kdvi and a few other sundry 'kde-ized' applications. You may have an argument to make over those but they hardly constitute very much of KDE. Some people (Trolltech, for instance, hence their rejection of the GPL) would appear to dispute that dynamically linking to a GPL library necessarily produces a derived work and hence the GPL may be irrelevant anyway.

  • don't free Qt, just don't use it (Score:3)

    by jetson123 ( 13128 ) on Monday July 10, 2000 @12:59AM (#946689)
    I agree that calls for Qt to be placed under some different license are not justified: Troll Tech can license their software whatever way they want.

    But users of Qt and KDE should realize that the Troll Tech QPL license is bad for open source and for Linux. If Linux had been licensed like Qt, it would have never caught on. And if KDE succeeds at displacing other Linux desktops, it will largely spell the end of Linux as a competitive, open source client desktop operating system: if you have to pay Troll Tech under the conditions they require you to pay, as a developer, you might as well go with BeOS or Windows, pay less money, get more development tools, and (in the case of Windows) cover a much bigger market segment.

    However, I disagree with your statement that "Troll Tech has been very nice to the Linux community". Troll Tech was merely business savvy and opportunistic. Adoption of Qt by KDE was one sweet deal for the company: they made software available to people who otherwise wouldn't pay for it anyway, they got a huge user community, lots of naive university students started hacking free software in it, and they got lots of feedback, bugfixes, and improvements, and adoption by several big companies in return. Without the exposure from KDE, Qt would have remained just one of many mediocre, tool-poor cross platform toolkits with a tiny user community. Troll Tech's "donation" paid handsomely for them. The open source community has nothing to excuse for or be thankful for.

    Altogether, I agree: don't ask Troll Tech to free Qt, or KDE to change their license. Instead, just don't use those systems. Develop and support truly free desktop software instead.

  • 1. If you want unicode, use something like:
    typedef std::basic_string<short> Qstring;

    2. Almost all std::basic_string implementations are
    reference counted also

    3. Reference counting can be bad in multithreaded

    4. std::basic_string has been around for YEARS

    5. The main question is the containers, std containers/algorithms are one of the best things about c++

    I know it will cause a little pain to migrate, but it'll be worth it in the long run.
  • When was the last time you heard of anyone being prosecuted for copying KDE? Last I heard KDE was on this here CD-ROM I got free in a magazine. And oh, I see KDE on this here FTP server.

    Tell me exactly how it is that KDE is illegal to copy, and how it is that TrollTech has been forcing KDE sites to be taken down. Tell me about all the people who are4 being sued by TrollTech for hosting/distributing/copying KDE. Then, tell me when you've grown up. If TrollTech's license has such a big hole in it, then it's really very smart of the Linux crowd to start annoying them by denouncing them and their license, now isn't it? Brilliant strategy: anger the people who can start destroying all Linux useage of Qt, if that hole does indeed exist. that's a much better strategy than being nice to them and not denouncing them and pissing them off. Nothing personal, don't take this as an insult or flame or flamebait, but I must scream now or my head will explode...MORONS! IT'S NOT SMART TO PISS PEOPLE OFF WHO WERE NICE ENOUGH TO GIVE YOU SOMETHING, BUT CAN STILL TAKE IT BACK!!! There, I feel better now. See what I mean about not pissing them off? If such a loophole does exist, it would be smart to be nice to them and try to persuade, not to denounce and make them feel like yanking the distribution rights back. However, I'm not convinced that such a loophole exists. I'm looking at the Qt license now, and don't see anything like that; could it perhaps be propaganda from the extremists? I think so. Otherwise, kindly point out where in the license this hole exists. I don't see it.
  • If more and more people start developing apps with Qt, other toolkits for Linux will fall into disuse. In the end, we might be left with only one high quality toolkit: Qt. And that would be bad, because Qt's license and pricing are not acceptable to many developers. If it comes to that, it would harm Linux as a whole.
  • MORONS! IT'S NOT SMART TO PISS PEOPLE OFF WHO WERE NICE ENOUGH TO GIVE YOU SOMETHING, BUT CAN STILL TAKE IT BACK!!!

    Woah--you are saying that Troll Tech can "take back" Qt for Linux whenever they please? And you are suggesting that we build a large open source infrastructure on that kind of basis? Something that can be rendered useless at the whim of a small private company or whoever acquires them?

    If we based the predominant Linux desktop on that kind of foundation, someone like Microsoft could come in, buy Troll Tech for a miniscule few $100 million, and put a quick end to any client aspirations of Linux. Microsoft kills technology that threatens their position regularly by buying out the competing companies.

    If there weren't any other reasons, that alone should be enough of a reason not to touch Qt with the proverbial 10 foot pole.

  • KDE2 and GNOME uses different technologies for embedding applications - look at the upcomming Koffice and the Konqueror browser - you will (more or less) be able to embed all KDE2 applications objects in those, but not GNOME apps.
    It's the same the other way around.

    What you says about Real Player just confirms my theory - what if a lot of other software products does the same, but only in KDE?

    It will give the user a lot more hassle if they choose GNOME, and therefore most users will choose KDE where it "just works out of the box".

    I don't have any preferences - I started using KDE because it was much more mature and stable than GNOME, but right now I'm using the latest Helix GNOME as my default desktop.
    I'm waiting for KDE2, which could be a winner, alone because of Konqueror - if the browser part is fast and actually useful, then they may have a winner.
  • Great.

    How about unifying interfaces? I mean, what prevents a Qt:: container from being an STL container, even if the compiler does not support the whole STL? Look at STLPort. They've managed to provide (parts of) STL for just about anything that can tell template from a hole in the ground. Can their experience, if not their code, be used?

    Now about "gnikcuf". Last time I checked, Qt applied BiDi algorithm to either everything or nothing, depending on compiler #DEFINE. This is not acceptable. This is not a toolkit's business. This is an app's business. There are texts (such as Web pages) in visual order, in logical order, and in explicit-logical order. An application knows what order to use (from CHARSET or something). Toolkit doesn't.

    As for std::string, I understand what happens. Qt was written before the std::. It is pro[bv]ably an impossible task to convert all of the Qt to use std:: interfaces. But if you were to start afresh, you probably would want to use just std::basic_string<unicode_t> where supported (unicode_t being a straightforward encapsulation of ushort), and some wrap around std::vector<unicode_t> if basic_string and all of the surrounding locale stuff is not available. Just my NIS0.02.

  • ...is when Allison talks about how running a company bsed on support fees gives the company an incentive not to make the software usable. Think he's being cynical? Imagine that you and a small team of programmers come up with a way to make Linux so easy to use that anyone can install, run, and maintain it for either server or desktop use. You take the idea to RH. Think they'll want to use it? Not on your life.

    That's OK, there are companies in this market, like IBM, HP, and Compaq, who do have a strong economic incentive to make Linux usable, so they can sell more hardware. They'll fund projects like KDE and be responsible for the real progress in usability.

  • It is impossible to say which or if any one of the two will "win", maybe they will both win and have about 50% of the desktop each.

    But what about the opposite, if it was Qt which was "left in the dark" instead of GTK? Many people/developers don't like the GPL. Therefore I think it could harm Linux just as much. But right now both are (AFAIK) getting more users, so it's not going to happen anytime soon.

    Personally I would like to see one desktop win soon (no matter what people say about choice), it is the applications that matters.
    If there only where one desktop (Gnome or KDE), there would be less "dublicate apps" as you have now, where you find many apps where the only diffences is the first letter ("Kapp" or "Gapp") and the functionality is mostly the same.

    That actually limits your choice - if you had one desktop environment, you could choose whichever suits your needs best (without having to take desktop environments conditions in consideration).
    It would remove much of the "competition focus" from the desktop environmens to the apps. which I think would be a *Good thing*.

    Maybe I'm wrong, but I fail to see that you loose much of a choice by having only one desktop environment. You will loose a lot of confusion and a bit of the competition between KDE and GNOME, but you will (IMHO) gain much more (and this will get me marked as flamebait :-).

  • It's not a loophole in the QPL. The problem is that the QPL is not compatible with the GPL. Code under the GPL that is compiled/linked with QPL code can't legally be distributed.
    The reason is that the GPL requires that the whole work (in this case the GPL'd code plus QT) be redistributable under the terms of the GPL. The QPL does not permit distribution of modified versions of the software, only distribution of the modifications in a separate form (patches etc), whereas the GPL does allow redistribution of modified version of the software. Since the whole work cannot be distributed under the terms of the GPL, it cannot be distributed at all.
    The fact that noone is enforcing it does not make it any less illegal.
  • Yeah, cos Microsoft (or whoever) has the power to retrospectively change the license on already distributed software, don't they?

    And the KDE Free Foundation doesn't exist either, does it?
  • But users of Qt and KDE should realize that the Troll Tech QPL license is bad for open source and for Linux. If Linux had been licensed like Qt, it would have never caught on. And if KDE succeeds at displacing other Linux desktops, it will largely spell the end of Linux as a competitive, open source client desktop operating system: if you have to pay Troll Tech under the conditions they require you to pay, as a developer, you might as well go with BeOS or Windows, pay less money, get more development tools, and (in the case of Windows) cover a much bigger market segment.

    Since when do you have to pay Troll Tech for developing KDE applications?
  • The only problem with Qt as a developer is that it is actually more 'free' by RMS' definition than GTK, which is under the LGPL (discouraged by RMS).

    So if you want to write commercial applications with Qt, then you have to (shock! horror!) buy the appropriate license, which is admittedly expensive, but so what.

    So you're basically saying TrollTech wants the best of both worlds. Well, good luck to them. They make very good software. They document it extremely well. They release it free to those who make free software, and charge those who don't.

    Oh and KDE is mostly LGPLed. Gnome is mostly LGPLed. What was that about 'truly free'?
  • One part of this article has actually been on my mind for a little while now. How do you base a business around selling a service for the product you sell and still encourage usability? If we were to take RedHat for example, it would seem that an ideal market for them would be tons of folks with RH Linux running, and making it as hard as hell for them to figure it out on their own. Is this really a good model for Linux to adopt in the long run?

    Certainly, no matter how many help files are included or intuitive features implemented into any OS there will still need to be some type of support structure. It just concerns me that ease of use would actually be contrary to a business model.

    Another real quick example would be going back to Warrick's comments on Sendmail. My personal experience with Sendmail is limited at best, but from what I've seen there's a ton of stuff in there. I'd guess that it would take me several hours, if not days, to get this up and running properly being that I have no previous experience with it. On the other hand, I have set up IMail* on an NT Server for my company which I had up, running, and configured in about 20 minutes. That's 20 minutes without reading over any manuals or having any previous experience with it other than a basic understanding of POP and SMTP.

    I don't mean to be picking on Sendmail as much as I am, especially considering it most likely has a lot more functionality than something like IMail. Thing is, IMail has a financial incentive to provide ease of use, where as Sendmail actually would lose money making things easier.

    My apologies for not providing better examples here. The point I'm really trying to get at is whether or not selling software as a service rather than a product is a viable option for the future. Will it prove itself to be good for the computer industry as a whole? Is it still too early to tell, seeing as how the Linux community is just now really starting to focus on usability?

    * I still use IMail as my company's E-Mail server after installing it a couple of years ago. Great stuff for doing mail on NT, and at $1000 it's actually one of the cheaper ones out there for that platform. Very stable and fast.
  • OK, not Unicode but for wide character languages (those with many symbols like Chinese), my fault. Anyway, yes you could easily create a basic_string with some large enough character type (QChar? *g*).

    STL is the common name, I know it's all part of the std:: library, but even Stroustrup talks about "the STL" in "The C++ Programming Language", so I guesst that's ok ;)

    As for the containers, the new value-based containers (QMap, QValueList, ...) work almost exactly like their std:: counterparts interface-wise, including iterators and all, only the (older) pointer-based ones don't (because of source compatibility).

  • Oh, I dunno... he doesn't look like a Dionne to me...

    :wq!

  • Actually, I was coding with Qt about a year ago and had some of the same questions.

    Recently, I checked out the latest version of Gtk-- [sourceforge.net]. While I haven't started using it yet, it looks like gold. It fully integrates with the STL and libsigc++ [sourceforge.net] is signals/slots done correctly (using the full power of templates rather than a preprocessor).

    Now, before Qt fans get up in arms, it is clear that Qt was developed before the STL and templates were well supported. For me, it looks like Gtk-- has exactly what I need.

    A nice comparison of the Qt and libsigc++ callback methods is presented here [sourceforge.net].

    --

  • The problem is that the QPL is not compatible with the GPL.

    I have to bring up a minor point: it is the GPL which is incompatible with the QPL in this case. I use Enlightenment [enlightenment.org], so I really have no concerns over KDE or GNOME.
  • Troll Tech was merely business savvy and opportunistic.

    Troll Tech wasn't savvy at all -- they were just lucky.

    They were in the business of selling a GUI toolkit for client Unix systems -- a market that is pretty much dwindling to nothing, and what's left is heavily standardized on Motif.

    Doesn't sound like the wisest market to be in. There's probably a half-dozen companies that make VisualBasic widgets that are larger and more profitable than TrollTech.

    The only thing that saved them is that KDE chose to use their freeware stuff, and KDE turned out to be such a polished product that Linux users were willing to hold their nose over the licencing issue and develop apps for Qt. If KDE didn't exist, or was buggy/defective, TrollTech would still be two guys in a basement somewhere.
  • Want KDE to win? Make Qt free. Game over.

    quite frankly it's not nearly that simple. i couldcare less about the qt license, but i very much prefer the current stable release of gnome to the current stable release of kde. i've used both to great extent at one point or another, and i just like gnome better. and i'm pretty sure im not the only one. i would find it hard to believe that i am the only person in the world that uses gnome and doesnt care whether qt is free or not (especially since i have three other friends that i live with that also use gnome, and as far as i can tell could also not care less what license qt is released under)

    i'm quite the agnostic when it comes to window managers, desktop environments, toolkits... i've used at one time or another windowmaker, afterstep, enlightenment and saw{mill|fish}, qt and gtk+, and gnome and kde. when the next version of kde comes out, i will probably try it out as well, and i may use it for some time. but i think it is ridiculous to say that kde would win hands down if qt were free, because there are a lot of people that just like gnome better. (and gtk+. good lord is qt ugly. it's a good thing they're adding theming support...) having used both, i much prefer gnome 1.2 and a slightly hacked gmc to kde/kfm 1.1.2 (and before anyone says that's not a fair comparison, those are the most current stable release of either platform, which is all i really care about)

    as a last note, i will add that the gnome calculator absolutely blows compared to the kde calculater. for the longest time i kept kde installed just so i could use a decent calculator without having to dig around for my ti-85.
  • I tell you why this is relevent.After moving into my luxorious ant and minority infested apartment in downtown Indianapolis, I decided to try and get DsL, but to no avail. I guess they don't offer a fast connection to us "members of the darker race" till the white suburbian fucks get it first. A way to keep a race unenlightened and ignorant? Cultural genocide? This leads to my major point. As you might know me from TRoLLaXoR's wonderful stories, I am good ol' ERRoR 808. Although, what you might not know about me is that I am a virgin. You see TRoLLaXoR's stories usually deal with gratuiutous gay sex. But they are just stories, and I have been saving myself for that special someone. But alas!! I have given up that dream. I am now auctioning off my virginity on ebay. That's right, you can have my clean, shaven, and pure body. HERE [saltire.org] is the link! Now, we gotta set some ground rules first, buddies. Most importantly, NO dirty kikes or hairy deigos are allowed to vote. Hell, even if you're clean and shaved you still can't vote. But don't get me wrong here. I'm not a racist, because I ENCOURAGE niggers to bid. I'll even give them a $50 credit. It's all about the affirmative action, kids! There's one thing I haven't told you. Well, I don't know what most people consider being a virgin is, but I consider it not ever having sex WILLINGLY. I feel this way because when I was a small boy, my favorite nun raped me with a strap-on. It might have been wet, messy, satisfying, and gratuitous but by no means was it consciously willing. OK folks, I gotta go, but remember to act fast! There's no telling when ebay might shut this gem down. If they do you can still contact me and we'll do business.
  • Warrick's statements regarding open source and selling services creates an incentive to produce a complicated and difficult to use product is compelling. Is this a side effect of the GPL software business model? I think Warrick's examples such as sendmail are pretty good in showing just how difficult an open source product can be. To me this in one of the biggest questions that need to be answered before the "open source business model" can make into the mainstream.
  • Want KDE to win? Make Qt free. Game over.

    No. Troll Tech wants Troll Tech to win. i.e. make money.
  • Actually, if you structure it right, you have an incentive to make it as good as possible. Imagine that you do yearly support contracts (vs per incident). Now, the fewer times people call, the more of that money you make. So, your incentive is to make it really good so people don't call, then sell the support contracts. Of course, you have to price the yearly support contracts such that they will buy them on the chance that they need it, but that's implementation detail.
  • Sorry about that, and thanks for the heads up. Damn, wish I'd seen your comment earlier, too!

    timothy
  • Your first question is easy: STL isn't supported on all compilers and OS platforms correctly yet. Why let such a trival thing like dependance on STL be a show-stopping trip up for cross platform independent code?

    "But gcc supports it!"

    Unfortunately, gcc isn't installed everwhere nor are the underlying support libraries.

    On the other hand, simple C++ features seem to be supported almost everywhere. I have no problem with abandoning nifty STL features to insure stability and correctly working platform independent code.

  • Actually, if you structure it right, you have an incentive to make it as good as possible. Imagine that you do yearly support contracts (vs per incident). Now, the fewer times people call, the more of that money you make. So, your incentive is to make it really good so people don't call, then sell the support contracts. Of course, you have to price the yearly support contracts such that they will buy them on the chance that they need it, but that's implementation detail.

    The thing to figure out here is whether or not someone would purchase a support contract if the product was simple to use. In your example, the product in question hasn't forced a tech to get on the phone to call for help in a year's time. Would you renew a support contract for something this easy to use, or figure on it being cheaper in the long run to pay for per incident support?

    The next logical step here is figuring out what kind of revenue you could pull in from a per incident style of billing for support. Again, making something easier to use plays heavily against this as well.

    I'd guess that around a year from now we'll have a good idea as to what the answer to my question is. We'll be seeing which companies based around an open source model survive, and what level of usability they offer. I do sincerely hope that my concerns are unfounded, but unless I'm missing some basic component to the economics of this, usability is the last thing that an open source company would want.

  • > The one who wins is the one who makes the best desktop.

    i hope you're right ;-)

    > What is absolute most important thing that makes the best desktop? - The apps!

    I absolutely disagree. The apps should be independent of the desktop-environment used. Otherwise, they would be part of it. Or even better, the apps shouldn't require a desktop-environment to be runnig at all.

    so long ...

  • "if I was a developer working for a company whose livelihood depended on being able to sell support for the software I wrote wouldn't I be less motivated to write easy-to-use and bug free code as someone who worked for a company whose lifeline wasn't based on selling support contracts?"
    This may be a valid concern, but a developer (team, company) that works along these lines -- deliberately avoiding usability improvements -- risks a loss of mindshare. If your program is so much harder to use than the available alternatives, then no one will use your software, much less buy a support contract.

    I think we're seeing this effect in action among SMTP daemons; I don't have any numbers, but I get the impression that qmail, smail, and postfix seem to be gaining ground on the notoriously hard-to-configure sendmail.

    Besides, no matter how easy the software is to use, some people will need support still -- as long as there is some user out there wondering where the damned "any" key is...

  • Re:And the overall point being......? (Score:3)

    by Bowie J. Poag ( 16898 ) on Monday July 10, 2000 @08:42AM (#946718) Homepage
    My name is Bowie J. Poag.... J, not T. :)

    The point I was trying to make was this: Very few people have anything to complain about when it comes to KDE's aesthetic qualities. It looks nice, and runs nice. The only thing standing in the way of KDE's mainstream success is the hangup they've got with the licensing issues surrounding Qt. It borders on the idiotic. Theyre trying to make money off licensing the libraries, when they could make 1000x more money by getting KDE out there, and in the hands of the public. Its like stopping two feet before the finish line to tie your damn shoes.. its rediculous.

    Troll Tech has only themselves to blame for the lack of acceptance of KDE. Licensing issues scare OSS developers. Its a fact. So long as Troll Tech insists on scaring off the developers, GNOME will creep closer and closer to beating them at their own game.

    The whole thing is just rediculous. As a Linux developer, which would you rather do? Pay cash for Qt, or develop with gtk for free? See what I mean?

    Bowie J. Poag
  • From the Qt Free Edition FAQ:

    11.
    Using the Free Edition, can I write software for internal use in my company/organization?

    The Qt Free Edition is not intended for such use; it is our policy that when you are using Qt for free, you should in return contribute to the free software community. If you cannot do that, you must get Professional Edition licenses instead.

    In my experience, most uses of free software start off as "internal" development, with some of the projects eventually becoming free, some turning into products, and some just disappearing. Because that's how development and open sourcing works at large "companies/organizations", they need to buy the commercial license basically for every developer.

    Note that most university students are probably covered by intellectual property agreements with their universities and funding organizations that also prohibit them from legally developing software with Qt Free Edition as part of their research.

  • Notions of "more free" or "less free" don't matter much to me. I don't object to Troll Tech's license on philosophical grounds. I think Troll Tech can license their software whatever way they want. Neither to I take what RMS says as gospel truth. Nor did I even suggest Gnome as an alternative AFAIK.

    The "standard" GUI toolkit for an open source OS is of fundamental importance; it is unlike almost any other library. If the GUI toolkit license isn't acceptable to a lot of potential users and supporters, the platform isn't acceptable to a lot of potential users and supporters.

    And what it comes down to is that, IMO, the LGPL is fine for an open source GUI toolkit. The GPL is marginal (it at least allows internal use), and the QPL is not.

    As for Gnome/GTK specifically, as far as I can tell, the GTK is fully under LGPL. That's good. Gnome is partially under GPL. That's not so good. If parts that are essential for writing good GUI apps and/or interoperating are under GPL (rather than LGPL), I think Gnome is also unsuitable to fill the role of predominant GUI platform on Linux (although I think a GPL'ed toolkit is still preferable to Qt Free Edition).

    But, more generally, I question whether there should be a predominant GUI platform on Linux, rather than an interoperable diversity. "KDE and Qt everywhere" is just as harmful to me as "Windows everywhere". The whole "KDE vs. Gnome" thing is like "Windows vs. MacOS". If people work more on interoperability instead of pushing a particular platform, then all these issues about one toolkit vs. another become much less important. And, who knows, with interoperability standards, the Linux desktop might even progress beyond being a Windows/MacOS clone, as people who have new ideas can incrementally move towards a new paradigm.

  • Look at the composition of the "KDE Free Qt Foundation": two Troll Tech employees and "two members of the KDE project". Even if the "two members of the KDE project" were completely independent, that would at best produce a tie. And there is no guarantee that they aren't also Troll Tech employees or consultants, or that they have the interests of open source in mind.

    Furthermore, destroying Qt is easy without ever triggering the "KDE Free Qt Project": stop the commercial support, and do half-hearted development. Then, KDE/Qt would be a toolkit with one of the most restrictive "open source" licenses in existence, completely unsuitable even for commercial users that have the money to pay. Hundreds of commercial developers would be left stranded and would have to port their code to other GUI toolkits.

    I think it's completely naive to believe that the QPL and "KDE Free Qt Foundation" protect anything. And I cannot help but think that Troll Tech is disingenuous rather then incompetent when they put together this string of legally flawed licenses and agreements.

  • Lay off the coffee, spaz. For the record I have no hatred, nor am I part of the linux community.

    Since you seem to know so much about the situation, how about letting us know what Troll's profits are, before and after KDE got popular. (I brought up ActiveX component companies because there's several hundred of them, which must indicate that it's a slightly profitable business at best. See http://www.componentshopper.com/)
  • What do you guys not understand? Trolltech has it the way it should always be. If you're going to use it to make free software, it's free. If you're going to use it to make commercial software, you pay. Sounds fair to me.

    Also, Qt Free Edition will ALWAYS be free. Repeat with me. Qt FREE EDITION WILL ALWAYS BE FREE. If Trolltech gets bought out and stops developing Qt, the KDE team can release it under the BSD license. Thats what the Free Qt Foundation is for... 2 members from Trolltech, 2 members from the KDE team, the KDE team having the tiebreaker vote.

    Some of you guys are suggesting that Trolltech release Qt under the LGPL. Currently, Qt is Trolltechs only product. You want them to starve just so you can have your "freedom"? We already have it. QPL fits the definition of free software.

    THE MORAL OF THIS LESSON: If you don't like it, then don't use it. Bitching about its license doesn't change the fact it's the best damn desktop environment out there.

  • KDE2 and GNOME uses different technologies for embedding applications - look at the upcomming Koffice and the Konqueror browser - you will (more or less) be able to embed all KDE2 applications objects in those, but not GNOME apps. It's the same the other way around.

    Theres a petition out there to ask the KDE and GNOME teams for a way to make KParts and Bonobo compatible...

    I seem to have lost the URL, though...

  • But, more generally, I question whether there should be a predominant GUI platform on Linux, rather than an interoperable diversity. "KDE and Qt everywhere" is just as harmful to me as "Windows everywhere".

    And who is forcing you to use KDE and QT? Its not as if KDE/QT is the only toolkit/desktop enviroment around...

    Sorry, but there are enough applications that dont use QT or KDE. So if you dont want to use Kcoolapp, you can always use Gcoolapp

  • If you actually read the license you would have noticed that in a tie, the winner is always the KDE developers and never Troll Tech. For Troll Tech to win in a license dispute they must get a least 1 of the KDE developers on the team to agree with them.

    Troll could not get away with half-hearted development. They must release a major release every tweleve months, and the two KDE representives most agree that it is a major release. Failure to do so, means the Qt license defaults to BSD licensing terms.

    Why would Troll stop doing commerical development and continue free development? They wouldn't be making any money, they would quickly go under, and then they wouldn't be able to support Qt Free Edition, so therefore it would go BSD licensed.

    The two members of the KDE project are elective representives, choosen by the KDE project as chairs to this committe. The same is true with the two Troll representives. It's a lifetime appointment, unless they retire or do something really bad, they will stay. That way, they are unlikely to be overly influenced by Troll or KDE. They also are not Troll Tech employees or consultants, they are KDE representives. And if you read the license, the worst they can vote on this license is to loosen the terms -- ie. that can't legally add new restrictions.

    The people are Troll Tech like Open Source Software, and with the design of the QPL and KDE Free Qt Foundation they must continue to support open source software forever. Nobody is at Troll dislikes OSS -- if they did, why would they be working at a company that the majority of their product is OSS ?

    And the last time I checked, their licenses are not legally flawed -- saying so would be going on no clear evidance -- pulling something out of your butt or out of somebodys elses butt.
  • But what about the opposite, if it was Qt which was "left in the dark" instead of GTK? Many people/developers don't like the GPL.

    GTK+ is under the LGPL , not the GPL, which basically means that you can't run off with it and make a proprietary version, or extend and distribute the library itself while keeping the source closed. In no way does it harm your ability to release closed-source apps based on GTK+.
  • Look at the composition of the "KDE Free Qt Foundation": two Troll Tech employees and "two members of the KDE project". Even if the "two members of the KDE project" were completely independent, that would at best produce a tie.

    Go read the KDE Free Qt Foundation document [kde.org]. It explicitly states that in case of a tie one of the KDE representatives will have a double vote.

    I do not feel competent to comment on the rest of your post because I don't know enough of these matters. Your above inaccurate statement does not reassure me as to the validity or truthfulness of the rest of your post. I hope you'll follow my example in the future if faced with the same situation.
  • You touched on a point here that I think most people miss. QT is 'free', in that I can write free software in it without charge. What if I want to write closed-source software (say, for a small company system or something)... Then I must pay..

    Unless you are willing to learn 2 api's, use GTK (there are wrappers for all sorts of languages, including C++). GTK kills two birds with one stone.


    Simon
  • I said "regular" as in I keep coming back, in truth I have been reading slashdot for about two years, I never posted anonymously, when I felt I knew the place well enough I got myself a login name and started posting.

    And I repeat, I do not have any problem with anonymous posting, it is everbodies right, but I won't take anybody seriously if he want's to critisize the choice of stories, and not have the guts to get a login name first.
    And I stand by my earlier statement, if you have a username, and you make certain posts anonymous because you don't want to get blamed/flamed if people dissagree, that is textbook cowardice.
    Now I am sorry if I made people angry, for one thing because nobody bothered to read what I was saying. This is turning into a flame war, I don't think I'll bother to respond to further flames, as has often been said, I have a right to my own opinion, and at least I have the guts to stick my nick next to it. If anybody really want's my e-mail address, he can figure it out by following my URL, but spambots can't

  • I did read the KDE Free Qt Foundation documents, and I think nothing that I said contradicts anything you said. And I don't find the document reassuring.

    In any case, this discussion has gone off track. I responded to a posting by someone who claimed that (I'm paraphrasing) "Troll Tech could take back Qt at any time, so we shouldn't annoy them". I don't see how anybody who has that kind of belief can advocate building a large free software infrastructure on such software.

    We can argue whether that belief is justified. I think it is partially justified, given the license and the loopholes. You may disagree. That's life.

  • I absolutely disagree. The apps should be independent of the desktop-environment used. Otherwise, they would be part of it. Or even better, the apps shouldn't require a desktop-environment to be runnig at all.

    You are absolutely correct - the apps should be independent of the desktop environment, as they can be. But the apps use some functionality in the desktop (ex. bonobo in GNOME), and such "things" should be standards, shared between the different environments.

    Sadly that is far from reality, so right now, I believe I'm right when saying that the apps is the most important thing.
  • Theres a petition out there to ask the KDE and GNOME teams for a way to make KParts and Bonobo compatible...

    I know, but it is far out in the future. Bonobo is (AFAIK) Corba, which the KDE-team decided not to use, because KParts is much faster and much of the functionality in Corba isn't needed.
  • Darn! And I wanted to ask them to make Qt exception-safe. Far out.

    (Assuming anybody still cares).

  • No, TrollTech is running the Linuxport of some little off-the-wall browser called Opera...maybe you've heard of it?
  • ...but I posted to it anyway :)

Slashdot Top Deals

"Pok pok pok, P'kok!" -- Superchicken

Close