"KDE 2.0 Development" Is Online (And OPL) 98
kupolu writes: "'KDE 2.0 Development,' a new book being published under the Open Publication License, is now available in full online. Another example of Open-ness at work. A quote from the story says, 'Since the book is released under the Open Publication License, it may be modified and redistributed online, which means that the book can be maintained (fixed, updated, expanded etc.) in the style of a free software project. In this spirit, volunteer translation of the book into five other languages has already begun.'" The book seems to be written in a nice, straightforward way. It starts off by explaining the motivations of the KDE project, but the bulk of the book is a combination of explanations and code examples covering everything from KParts to Mesa and OpenGL to multimedia integration. Happily, this book also serves in part as a user advocate -- programmers are reminded about the importance of readable dialogues and system responsiveness. You can go straight to the book, or check out the excellent andamooka project, which hosts the online version of this soon-available-in-print book.
Re:Now for a free Windows port (Score:1)
The question is: Do you really need the QT for Windows? if you're developing A Windows only application - that I wouldn't suggest for you to use it - there are other better solutions for that.
On the other hand - if you're developing Windows applications and you're going to target other non Windows OS's (Linux, *BSD, Tru64 etc..) - then QT is worth every penny - but I suggest for you to negotiate the prices (specially if you're coming from a big company)..
And as for support - I think they got a support center in US (if I'm not mistaken) and they have great documentation.
Keep in mind (Score:1)
The transition to an OS world is not going to be won on the desktop alone. The other half of the fight is going to be for the commercial programmers. With the establishment of the Gnome foundation, I was slightly worried that KDE might slow down a little bit.
Re:This ceases to be a book... (Score:1)
First, off topic: put your money where your sig is :-) (see sig below)
To the point, the following entry, stolen from Merriam-Webster [m-w.com], shows that the usage of the word "book" is nowhere near as limited as you suggest -- very many of the definitions have nothing to do with paper. Expanding usage to include something like an "online book" hardly seems a stretch.
That being said, I hate reading books online. Can't do it on the can, can't do it on the train, can't do it walking down the street, can't hold one finger in the index while you quick check to see if you got the right reference, can't flip through 100 pages to find the page on the left side that looked like what you remembered... I could go on, but the point is that it will be a long, long time before the user interface of an online book will compare favorably to that of a print book. IMHO, the only thing an online book has going for it is a text search feature.
Main Entry: 1 book : a set of written sheets of skin or
paper or tablets of wood or ivory b : a
set of written, printed, or blank sheets bound together
into a volume c : a long written or printed
literary composition d : a major division of
a treatise or literary work e : a record
of a business's financial transactions or financial
condition -- often used in plural <the book s
show a profit> :
something that yields knowledge or understanding <the
great book of nature> <her face was an
open book> : the total
available knowledge and experience that can be brought to
bear on a task or problem <tried every trick in the
book> <the book on him is that he
can't hit a curveball> b : the standards
or authority relevant in a situation <run by the
book> : all the charges
that can be made against an accused person <threw
the book at him> b : a position
from which one must answer for certain acts : ACCOUNT [slashdot.org] <bring
criminals to book> : the
script of a play c : a book of arrangements
for a musician or dance orchestra : musical
repertory : a packet of items bound
together like a book <a book of stamps>
<a book of matches> :
the bets registered by a bookmaker; also : the business or activity of giving odds and
taking bets : the number of tricks
a cardplayer or side must win before any trick can have
scoring value /'buk-"ful/
noun : in one's
own opinion :
in favor with one :
an act or occurrence worth noting : on the records
Pronunciation: 'buk
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English bOc; akin to Old High German buoh book, Gothic boka letter
Date: before 12th century
1 a
2 capitalized : BIBLE [slashdot.org] 1
3
4 a
5 a
6 a : LIBRETTO [slashdot.org] b
7
8 a : BOOKMAKER [slashdot.org] b
9
- bookful
- in one's book
- in one's good books
- one for the book
- on the books
Re:KDE development in 3 easy steps (Score:1)
And no, I don't think you deserved to be modded down as a troll.
Re:Not impressed (Score:1)
Re:KDE development in 3 easy steps (Score:1)
I do.
*/
Good. So don't give others a hard time for doing the same. =P
Re:KDE development in 3 easy steps (Score:1)
Hahahaha...I rather think it should be the opposite. RMS and the Free Software zealots were advocating boycotting KDE due to its Qt base. You can thank Open Source people for making Qt free. Now RMS would have you hold KDE accountable for "past transgressions."
If anyone should be apologizing, it's RMS.
Re:KDE development in 3 easy steps (Score:1)
Can't stand the fact that you can use QT under pure GPL? Do you require the impure LGPL for some reason?
Bleh...you probably still hold a grudge against Germans for past transgressions.
Re:WinGTK+ is here NOW; Free WinQt isn't (Score:1)
You shouldn't feed the troll though. It only grows.
You are allowed... (Score:1)
For example:
Gore or Nader = GOOD Bush = BAD Gnome or Red Hat = BAD KDE or Debian = GOOD
Re:Guess what it needs mesa (Score:1)
As for ad blocking technology I recommend wwwoffle, it does much more than that (perfect for modem users, but I even have it on my T1 connection)
Check http://www.gedanken.demon.co.uk/wwwoffle / [demon.co.uk]
This should ideally not be at browser level, but earlier (mozilla, netscape, konqueror don't see ads with this)
Re:KDE development in 3 easy steps (Score:1)
# SlapAyoda
# SlapAyoda@yahoo.com
This help further the cause (Score:1)
Re:Now for a free Windows port (Score:1)
Re:Not What They Should Be Concentrating On (Score:1)
Solid as a rock on my box as of beta 2. Perhaps the fact that you are using a POS of a distribution which is built with a non-release, developers-only version of gcc is part of the problem.
Re:KDE development in 3 easy steps (Score:1)
Re:fscking trolls... (Score:1)
Re:KDE development in 3 easy steps (Score:1)
Re:KDE development in 3 easy steps (Score:1)
Re:fscking trolls... (Score:1)
Re:You are allowed... (Score:1)
Re:KDE development in 3 easy steps (Score:1)
In my post
Re:Now for a free Windows port (Score:1)
If you feel that Windows support is sufficiently important, start the project. (I don't feel motivated, and don't have that kind of knowledge of Windows.)
P.S.: Which version of windows would you be targeting? Any one you choose would be a limitation. Not picking favorites is probably not feasible.
P.P.S.: When I said "TrollTech should", I meant that my projections said that they would find this the most favorable course. Actually, I think something a bit closer to the QPL without the platform specific distinctions would be their best choice. They are doing nearly all of the development in house anyway. If they are trying to keep up with Windows system changes, they probably need to be able to incorporate the submitted changes into their commericial product.
(The idea here is: If you don't sell it, it's free. If you do, then I get a rake-off. And if you want changes to be incorporated into the non-commercial releases, then you have to allow me to include them with my commercial releases.)
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
Re:Now for a free Windows port (Score:1)
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
Re:Not What They Should Be Concentrating On (Score:1)
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
Good (Score:1)
Stop banging on these guys, they put in the work, they deserve some reward for all the work they have put in! They are letting us all read it on our low resolution displays for free.
Good work, KDE writer people!
Re:This ceases to be a book... (Score:1)
I've lost hope!!!!
Moderators - you can mod me up or down, my karma will only go down, I get moderated up, yet it is in vain, somehow - my karma remains as it is - It can only go down.... maybe my karma is just too high for the likes of you.
I am unashamed. Mod Up or Mod Down, only Mods down will affect me, I am lifeless and worthless.
ROB, Do something, before I change my sig...
---
Re:You are allowed... (Score:1)
You just call it "Slashthink" because you cannot conceive that different people have different viewpoints than the narrow one you agree with. If you want a website that will agree with your "viewpoint" Slashdot is not it. Try this one --> Koalition for Konservative Kaucasians [rushlimbaugh.com] (a sanitized website whose intended audience is closet neo-Nazi's, not the overt kind).
--
You think being a MIB is all voodoo mind control? You should see the paperwork!
cart -- car, so ... book -- (Score:1)
I do agree that this isn't (what we think of as) a book, but
For instance, "Document" is accurate, but just a shade less vague than "artifact" or "thing." There are things like "eBook" but they're to gag on and die.
In this case, there really is a print version as well; this makes me feel not-so-bad about calling the electronic version a "book" as well.
I can't think of a replacement that works *better* than book; sort of like a "sedan" has not always meant a certain kind of internal-combustion-engine automobile, I think the term "book" will probably just become more inclusive.
Suggestions welcome!
timothy
Not What They Should Be Concentrating On (Score:1)
Re:WinGTK+ is here NOW; Free WinQt isn't (Score:1)
Or to put it another way: Qt makes a fellow choose two out of three from the set {free software, available now, available on both Windows and POSIX+X11}.
But the original argument was that QT restricted people's freedoms because the GPLed version didn't run on windows yet. Which is silly. Is GTK+ less free than QT because it doesn't have the equivelant to QT/Embedded (which is also available under the GPL)? Of course not, it's just that GTK+ and QT have different feature sets. It's not a question of freedom.
Re:Not impressed (Score:1)
YMMV I was glad to get rid of Netscape. Konqueror, for me and my system, seems to have a few rough spots but it's fast and doesn't crash. And it will only improve. Thanks, Konqueror team!
Mandrake 7.2 and KDE 2 for me? for free?
Re:Responsiveness would be nice (Score:1)
Konqueror seems to crash occasionally, but at least it doesn't take X down with it, like good ol' netscape used to. I'm keeping it, and looking forward to some more stability and speed in the next release.
-- Eric
Downloading whole book? (Score:1)
Re:think about the GPL before you start developing (Score:1)
Re:This book is Not Free Software (Score:1)
Re:KDE development in 3 easy steps (Score:1)
I don't know about Perl, but if there aren't any bindings, doing them wouldn't be so hard.
Qt is FREE. Period. You can port it to Windows, MacOS, whatever you like. There IS a non-free Windows version, but that doesn't hinder you in porting the GPL version yourself.
As for a Qt => GTK wrapper: write one if you want it so much. It would certainly attract quite an amount of attention!
Re:Now for a free Windows port (Score:1)
Kylix is a Linux port of Delphi + C++Builder, so you WON'T have to program in pascal.
Re:Not really OPEN (Score:1)
Meanwhile, a kludgy way to read the html without blasting every file through a stream editor is to open via file:/ rather than dumping the docs on your web server.
I'm sure the absence of the
Open software PLUS open documentation! The world is getting better all the time - and the President of the United States has nothing to do with it!
Re:Not impressed (Score:1)
Actually you're right. I thought he was talking about the fact that you can change the buttons of the browser itself. I wasn't aware that he was talking about HTML4 buttons. In that light, it has absolute priority. :)
Re:Not impressed (Score:1)
Re:--disable-debug! (Score:1)
--enable-debug creates debugging code [default=no]
Don't you think a stable release version should be taylored towards end users?
Even with debug-output, you can configure what debug-stuff you want to see, check kdebugdialog.
Ah, interesting! Thanks. :-)
Re:Not impressed (Score:1)
Well, this is nice, agreed, but exactly these "neat features" are very clear indicators that mozilla people don't set their priorities right. What's the point in customizable buttons when the application underneath is unusable?
As for correctness, Mozilla is much better than Konquerer. I don't have an example off the top of my head, but Mozilla always renders web pages correctly. It also has the best standard support of all the browsers in the market.
Yes, that's true. It's a HTML4 compilant renderer which is good. (Opera also conforms to HTML4 AFAIK.)
And finally, you need KDE to run Konquerer. That means if the sysadmin at my school isn't willing to install KDE, I can't use Konquerer at all. I'm sure the sysadmin will install Mozilla, though, because it's not as platform dependent as Konquerer.
I hope you know this is false. As I pointed out: I'm using Konqueror using Windowmaker [windowmaker.org]. There is no need to run KDE2.0 for Konqueror.
I like some of the KDE apps, but I dislike KDE's attempt to copy the Windows GUI. Who on earth thinks this stupid 'start' button was a good idea? Gnome is not much better in this regard. Or why is everyone copying the Window-style filemanager? I think the old Amiga-style Diskmaster or Nextstep's filemanager were much better concepts.
Re:Not impressed (Score:1)
That's strange. I have a quite different experience. Mozilla is still too slow and crashes way too often and Netscape's HTML renderer is terribly outdated. I've been using Konqueror for the past week and it servers about 90% of my browsing needs. It's relatively stable and very fast. (For instance, look at table rendering!)
KDE's problem is that they released 2.0 too early. IMHO it's barely in beta quality right now. (Example: If you compile it using mostly standard switches, a lot of KDE programs will print tons of debugging stuff.) But Konqueror is nifty, I use it under Windowmaker.
As for the much hyped Konqueror, well it's not bad, but it most certainly does not live upto its billing. Don't get me wrong, I realise the amount of work that's gone into it, but it is absolutely not a replacement for the likes of mozilla or opera (or even Netscape 4.x).
Question: What exactly is mozilla supposed to replace? I've been trying every milestone and while I like some of the ideas, overall the browser is not quite there yet. I really have the feeling they want too much to fit into the browser.
Re:Not impressed (Score:1)
Well, do you think they were successful so far?
But don't flame them just because you think you are more fit to command their team. :>
Did I make such a claim? You shouldn't take this so personal.
In any case, I just fetched the latest build from mozilla.org to see how they're doing. Here's a little benchmark I just did using netscape 4.76, Konqueror and mozilla.
TIME COMMAND VSZ RSS
00:00:02 konqueror 17156 11364
00:00:23 konqueror 39236 32704 21s
00:00:01 netscape 20400 12196
00:00:25 netscape 47404 37072 24s
00:00:10 mozilla-bin 31648 22644
00:00:41 mozilla-bin 44388 35932 31s
The first line is the process of the respective browser just after startup. (ie. mozilla took 10 seconds). The second line is taken from 'ps -o time,comm,vsize,rss -a | grep ...' after having loaded a 1'283KB slashdot-html file in each of the three browsers.
Now, it seems konqueror is not that much faster than I first thought, but its advantage is that you don't have to wait until the whole page is rendered before you see something.
On a side note I must say that the current nightly build of mozilla looks promising.
Re:Not impressed (Score:1)
Never seen the Amiga or RiscOS ones though, any info?
Re:KDE development in 3 easy steps (Score:1)
and btw there are python wrappers for qt. check out following sites "Python + KDE tutorial"> and [xs4all.nl]PyKDE [thekompany.com]
Re:Now for a free Windows port (Score:1)
Responsiveness would be nice (Score:1)
Re:You are allowed... (Score:1)
Jeremy
The continuing KDE vs. GNOME flamewar (Score:1)
The reason for your existance died when Qt became GPL.
Not necessarily. What if you don't want to code in C++? Making language bindings for Qt isn't as easy as for GTK+.
Want to continue the flamewar on the NES [8m.com]?Re:I had the same problem with mandrake7.2 (Score:1)
Re:Not really OPEN (Score:1)
--
Linux ceases to be an OS... (Score:1)
Operating systems are physical entities that you buy in a cardboard box at Circuit City.
Operating systems are set in stone. They cannot be modified by mere users.
To keep on calling Linux an OS is like calling a car a cart.
--
Re:KDE development in 3 easy steps (Score:1)
jumped my gun (Score:1)
Re:Not impressed (Score:1)
As for KDE2 books, I welcome them. One thing you can say for Microsoft is that there's (plenty of|too much) documentation for their APIs...
Re:Downloading whole book? (Score:1)
their name is TROLLtech (Score:1)
think about the GPL before you start developing (Score:1)
That's fundamentally different from using GPL'ed software like gcc. If you start developing using gcc, your software doesn't automatically become GPL'ed and you can always switch to any of a number of other vendors.
With KDE/Qt, if you start developing for it, you are for practical purposes tied to the library and the company. If you ever want to make a commercial version of your software, you must license from that vendor and pay whatever they ask.
Choosing a complex library that falls under the GPL is a big step that you need to consider very carefully, since it closes off most of your options later on. My recommendation would be to stay away from KDE/Qt development, as well as from any library portions of Gnome/GTK that are covered by the GPL. Of course, there is no problem with using GPL'ed software as applications or tools.
It's also unnecessary to make that kind of commitment to a GPL'ed library when it comes to GUI libraries. wxWindows [wxwindows.org] is a very complete C++ interface to several different toolkits, including Win32 and GTK, and if anybody cares to, it could be adapted to a Qt backend as well. And FLTK [fltk.org] is a nice, simple cross-platform GUI library, good for many applications and much easier to deploy than either GTK or Qt.
Re:Ultimate in Fairness (Score:1)
And from the point of view of promoting open source software, I think the kind of opportunism Troll Tech represents is ultimately harmful. You lead by example, and a transparent commercial bargain like the one Troll Tech proposes is not the example I would like to see companies emulate. If Linux imposed the same restrictions on software that is based on it as Troll Tech's license imposes on Qt applications, Linux would not stand a chance at widespread adoption.
I think in the current environment, choosing GPL for something as fundamental as a GUI library is, ultimately, harmful to the goals of free software. You are welcome to disagree with that assessment.
Re:Ultimate in Fairness (Score:1)
I think it's simplistic to view the world as divided into the evil people who charge for "Closed Source" software and the good people who produce "Open Source" software. In fact, most people who make such decisions do so as individuals, people who sometimes develop open source software, who sometimes develop commercial software for others, and who sometimes convince their employers to turn commercial projects into open source projects.
The fact is that if you, as an individual, invest time and effort into Qt, you immediately become a marketing tool for Troll Tech. That's the bargain. If you take on a commercial job after a couple of years of work with Qt, you'll probably try to convince your employer to buy Qt rather than something else. And if you contribute feedback, bug fixes, or enhancements to Qt, you contribute to Troll Tech's bottom line. In doing so, Troll Tech is just as much taking commercial advantage of free software as someone who uses an LGPL'ed library and doesn't voluntarily share their sources.
Yes, LGPL'ed and BSD'ed libraries might be abused by people I work for. But by using them, I don't immediately sign up to become a marketing tool for a commercial software vendor; the commercial abuse of those tools is someone else's doing, not mine. And by sharing software freely, I think LGPL'ed and BSD'ed libraries are leading by example.
From a purely practical point of view, there are nice cross-platform alternatives to Qt which are much less restrictive for me personally when I write open source software, and I don't think it is "bitching" to point this out. And from a philosophical point of view, if the kind of thinking that underlies Troll Tech's business model takes hold, I think you can kiss the free software movement goodbye.
Re:think about the GPL before you start developing (Score:1)
Re:Not What They Should Be Concentrating On (Score:1)
The number of the beast
Re:KDE development in 3 easy steps (Score:1)
14 3/8 (Score:1)
Re:Responsiveness would be nice (Score:1)
Re:14 3/8 (Score:1)
Good thought, but I dunno... (Score:1)
This book is Not Free Software (Score:2)
Thanks
Bruce
Re:This book is Not Free Software (Score:2)
The OPL is actually 4 different licenses, depending on the options you select. They should all have different names instead of being lumped under "The Open Publication License" in the singular.
I wonder if the volunteer translators for this book have considered that Howard K. Sams Publishing will hold a monopoly on printed copies of their work. They could consider it a fair trade, which is fine as long as they know about it.
Thanks
Bruce
Re:Isn't KDE dead anyway? (Score:2)
Re:KDE development in 3 easy steps (Score:2)
Re:Guess what it needs mesa (Score:2)
I don't want a lot, I just want it all!
Flame away, I have a hose!
Guess what it needs mesa (Score:2)
I don't want a lot, I just want it all!
Flame away, I have a hose!
Re:KDE development in 3 easy steps (Score:2)
Re:Now for a free Windows port (Score:2)
But you are right that it is too expensive for "casual" use. Perhaps they should offer a much cheaper version for non-commercial developers, perhaps similar to the educational program.
Re:Not What They Should Be Concentrating On (Score:2)
Proper software engineering says that the documentation should be finished before releasing the software. I hardly think that they're early. Hell, they're late! But in any case, KDE is not crashing on my box (Slackware 7.1). I find it extremely stable. KOffice has a ways to go, but the rest of the standard KDE2 is quite nice.
Re:Isn't KDE dead anyway? (Score:2)
Okay, all you trolls go home. Nobody's dead, there's no blood on the highway. Not even a banged shin. KDE2 is staying on my desktop. I don't give a shit what Sun says. They aren't my master.
Re:KDE development in 3 easy steps (Score:2)
All philosophical issues have evaporated: you can use it under the GPL if software under other licenses are distasteful to use. The aesthetics issue is gone: several OS-emulating widget themes are standard, other themes can be written, KDE has written a bunch of their own, you can use the KDE themes to create your own without having to know programming. Performance is equal to GTK: it always has been, but most distros ship the default build, so build it for multithreading and with -fno-exceptions and it's damn fast!
So the difference is the same as that between pizzas and calzones. There are some people who like pizza but hate calzones. Go figure...
Re:Ultimate in Fairness (Score:2)
I do see some movement in the way of alternate revenue streams though. Opera and Kylix both paid good money for Trolltech services. As desktop unices become more common, this revenue will grow. And I see that they are looking into the proprietary add-on market for Qt modules.
But in the end, I still see this huge fact staring out from the window of reality: people who are charging money for their own software are bitching that Trolltech is doing the same. Although the shareware writers may be left out in the cold, it is more than affordable for the vast majority of commercial developers. Go ask your auto mechanic what his tools cost.
I think in the current environment, choosing GPL for something as fundamental as a GUI library is, ultimately, harmful to the goals of free software.
I fully agree. But Qt is not under the GPL. It is under the GPL *and* the QPL.
Re:Ultimate in Fairness (Score:2)
There's nothing wrong in bitching. Hell, I bitch sometimes myself
Re:Now for a free Windows port (Score:2)
No, no, no! A free Windows port would kill TrollTech. TT (judging from the outside, Qt's API, for instance--which is the best I've used) assembled a great team of programmers and is paying them to work on the free version of Qt by letting the corporations that can afford it pay for a Windows version
Yes, but that only applies if you assume that the majority of people buying the licenses would release their code under the GPL, which isn't likely. What it would do, however, is bring a large amount of Free software to Windows.
Re:KDE development in 3 easy steps (Score:2)
This book is non-free - uses OPL option B. (Score:2)
In other words, only Sams Publishing has the right to distribute printed copies. This might sound fair enough, but it suffers from the same problem as the QPL: incompatibility with itself. If you want to merge portions of this book with portions of another, similarly licensed book from someone else, then nobody has the right to print the resulting derivative work. If a C++ book, say, was released under this license by Que, say, and you used the C++ book and the KDE book to create a derived work, "Learn C++ for KDE", then neither you nor Que nor Sams Publishing have the right to print that book.
Re:This book is Not Free Software (Score:2)
Licenses in general are already a huge mess, and are getting moreso. This book may be, as you said, interesting.
However, the licenses are just getting silly. I wonder CONSTANTLY about why companies just narrowly tread that path between full-openness, and proprietary.
In my (ever-so-liberalized) mind, I see the choice being very easy to make. Even in my business, I can see making the choice EITHER proprietary OR open..
I dont see why people feel compelled to half-ass it.
Maybe I am just naive..
Cost isn't the big problem (Score:2)
It's a real issue, because Microsoft uses MFC to control developers. They're scared of a good, portable, widely used GUI toolkit. That's why it's important to have one.
There's antitrust history on this, related to Borland, which had the first C++ wrapper for Windows. Symantec decided years ago that fighting Microsoft with a closed-source cross-platform SDK was hopeless, which is why they dumped Bedrock. [byte.com]
Open source, though, has a big advantage here. Open source doesn't go away if the vendor does. And this is something marketed to programmers, who can fix the thing. So if a free GUI toolkit for Windows gets a reasonable amount of use, it can live for a long time. An open source version may have a bigger potential market than a closed source version. The vendor may have to fund the project by selling support, but then, that's the Red Hat business model.
WinGTK+ is here NOW; Free WinQt isn't (Score:2)
[Qt is] truly Free, so you can port it yourself if you want to. There's a lot of Unix-only Free software, I don't hear you moaning about how GNOME only runs on Unix.
But this means you have to do the work of porting Qt. The work of porting GTK+ is already mostly done [gimp.org].
Or to put it another way: Qt makes a fellow choose two out of three from the set {free software, available now, available on both Windows and POSIX+X11}. Until the WinXFree86 team figures out how to work around 16-bit code in Windows 9x GDI (XF86 pretty much works in NT), those three attributes are available in GTK+.
Not really OPEN (Score:2)
In the interest of speed, I downloaded the tgz file and put it on my local server. The css files are missing, resulting in
Re:Not really OPEN (Score:2)
This ceases to be a book... (Score:3)
Books are physical entities written on paper
Boots are set in stone, they cannot be modified
To keep on calling this a book is like calling a car a cart.
-
Re:Not really OPEN (Score:3)
Ultimate in Fairness (Score:3)
Instead of asking yourself if you really want to use a library under the GPL/QPL, instead ask yourself if you want to write an Open or Closed application...
Re:KDE development in 3 easy steps (Score:3)
Re:KDE development in 3 easy steps (Score:3)
QT AFAIK only supports C++
Wrong. At the very least, there are a good set of bindings for Python, I believe there are also Perl bindings.
QT is only truly Free on Unix.
So? It's truly Free, so you can port it yourself if you want to. There's a lot of Unix-only Free software, I don't hear you moaning about how GNOME only runs on Unix.
GTK works fine on many platforms
QT works fine on many platforms. X is not required, either.
Does this increse my freedom as a programmer? (Can I apply skills/knowledge of this undertaking to other projects/applications/platforms?)
What makes you think that you cannot do this with QT? Trolltech also sells QT under a license that allows non-free programs to be written with QT. How does this magically remove all your knowledge of QT once you have completed a project?
Does this increase my users freedom? (Can they run in in Windows, etc?)
QT works on windows. You only need to pay for QT if you develop with it, and don't want to port it yourself.
Now for a free Windows port (Score:3)
Anybody planning to offer an open version on Windows?
Open Publication License: free or non-free? (Score:3)
KDE Development.. (Score:4)
In the years to come we are going to need alot of quality tools to help pull programmers out of their reliance on the HUGE pile of high-quality crutches (ie, books on how to program in VB).
The transition to a free/open software world is not going to be won on the desktop alone. The other half of the fight is going to be for the commercial programmers.
With the establishment of the Gnome foundation, I was slightly worried that KDE might slow down a little bit. Thankfully, they didnt seem to miss a beat.