Re: Evolution is better for enterprices...

faq
flatforty
contribute
subscribe
configure
search
rdf

main
parent
thread

Re: Evolution is better for enterprices...
by U on Friday 28/Jan/2005, @14:35

"Furthermore a port of Kontact to Windows should be much easier and faster"

Sounds good in theory, but we all know this will never be done.

Related Links

·   Articles on Interviews
·   Also by U
·   Contact author

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )

Right you are
by Morty on Friday 28/Jan/2005, @15:32

Since most of KDE already runs on windows. Like this.
http://kde-cygwin.sourceforge.net/kde3/screenshots.php?img=kmail.png

And the goal is to do it even better.
http://kde-cygwin.sourceforge.net/qt3-win32/features.php

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: Right you are
by me on Friday 28/Jan/2005, @17:03

Using Cygwin, you must be joking! I don't think that KDE apps are easier to port than gtk+ apps, eg GIMP works just fine on Windows.
If I remember right, there are also issues with Qt on Windows, doesn't this require licensing costs?

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: Right you are
by Morty on Friday 28/Jan/2005, @17:57

The first link shows it works NOW, with Cygwin. As are more than you can say about the alternatives. Except Athera who actually uses the a modified KOrganiser as callendar part:-)

As for porting to windows, you have to compare KDE to Gnome and Qt to gtk+. Then let the numbers speak, Qt applications clearly outnumbers gtk+ ones.

Had you actually tried the links, the second link would have shown you a working port of the GPL Qt to windows. Already used to port applications, not simple ones at that.

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: Right you are
by blacksheep on Monday 31/Jan/2005, @13:00

I think "me"'s point is that it is as easy to port a GTK or Qt application with Cygwin.
The real issue is when making a native binary port without using some sort of virtual machine environment.
Compiling a native binary of Kontact in Windows would require Novell to buy Qt licenses and that's probably why they have followed the path of using Evolution, even if it is harder. The issue is not technical, it's practical, that's "U"'s and other's points.

Anyway, personally, I couldn't care less about free software being ported to Windows.

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: Right you are
by Kevin Krammer on Monday 31/Jan/2005, @14:02

<i>Compiling a native binary of Kontact in Windows would require Novell to buy Qt licenses</i>

That would be the fastes way, another option would be the route they are taking with GTK+, porting Qt/Free to Windows, or more accurate, finishing the ongoing portin effort.

After all the current cygwin stage is only considered an intermediate step towards a fully native Win32 port of Qt/Free.

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: Right you are
by Morty on Monday 31/Jan/2005, @17:58

The work in porting to Cygwin is not in the GUI part in any case, so the toolkit does not really matter. The fact is that the Qt port is already functional.

If the problem are for Novell to buy a few Qt licenses for their developers, you are right the issue is not technical. But it's also far from practical, it's political. In this case tho, I'll guess this is more like some kind of backroom program than a Novell strategy, since Novell already have a successful Groupware solution on windows.

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: Evolution is better for enterprices...
by Kevin Krammer on Saturday 29/Jan/2005, @04:11

> Sounds good in theory, but we all know this will never be done.

The PIM developers seem to think different:
http://dot.kde.org/1106179379/1106206796/1106211548/

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: Evolution is better for enterprices...
by U on Saturday 29/Jan/2005, @08:31

>> Waste of time. Kontact/KMail etc. are KDE integrated apps.

What does that supose to mean?

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: Evolution is better for enterprices...
by Kevin Krammer on Saturday 29/Jan/2005, @09:20

No idea, I was referring to Ingo's posting.

[ Reply To This | View ]

The Fine Print: The previous comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )


		"I just wanted to be certain that the code was unmaintainable." -- Charles Samuels
KDE®, "K Desktop Environment", "KDE Dot News", "got the dot?" and the KDE Logo® are trademarks or registered trademarks of KDE e.V. in the European Union, the United States and other countries. All other trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the poster. The rest: Copyright © 2000-2008 KDE e.V. for The KDE Project. For further information or comments on this site, please contact the Webmaster.