In this week's CVS-Digest:
A deeper freeze is called for in preparation for release. Kexi,
a graphical database application now has GUI and non-GUI parts.
Many bug fixes, including searching and sorting fixes in JuK,
topmenu fixes in KWin, CSS and JavaScript fixes in Konqueror.
Dot Categories:
Comments
>>How do your points change if we were talking about the Qt/KDE apis are wrapped in java (I'm working on regenerating the java bindings for release 3.2 now).<<
I prefer Qt's over Java's APIs (and any other API), the main problem is that Qt lacks features compared to Java. And for some things exceptions would be nicer though, as it is quite easy to do bad things in Qt without noticing before it is too late, e.g. initialize a QDateTime with an invalid time.
(But I would still prefer C# over Java, at least I think so - I don't have enough experience with C# to be sure about that)
http://www.konqueror.org/ is broken. It point to "KDE Development Home"
[Mod's note: Banned user. History of abuse since 2002/07 with written admission on FootNotes.]
Is it really that bad?
If SuSE changes their default desktop to GNOME (which damages the health of its users ;-), I 'll change my default distribution.
First to say that this forum seems to be censored, and your message may be will be deleted. I saw several times a mad admin deleting posts.
I am reading every day the dot but posting less and less often - may be my last post was more than a month ago.
Anyway, you have a point, but seems that these days people like you are never heard (or deleted posts). Your point is good about Qt and TrollTech. It's impossible and forbidden one to write kde apps unless if he is willing to sponsor the development of the Qt. I call this GPL tirany.
KDE will not survive for a long time if this policy of GPL tirany over the KDE's underlying toolkit Qt continues. KDE must be free of GPL to survive, KDE must be free of Qt to survive!
Give me a LGPL or BSD KDE/QT and I will write apps. And that's what the companies do they prefer GNOME/GTK because of the LGPL.
Apple did a good job by freeing KHTML and KJS from GPL, let's start freeing the rest KDE from them, or the other option will be waiting the trolls to free the Qt from GPL (I don't believe this scenario).
Let me tell you this: I can write apps for Java (free from GPL), I can write apps for OSX (free from GPL), I can write apps for GNOME and Windows (free from GPL) and I cannot do this for KDE/Qt because of the GPL tirany.
These days the only app from KDE I use is Safari because Apple freed it from GPL (thanks Apple, thanks Kdevelopers).
About SuSE, being or not KDE supporter will not convince the companies to start writing apps for KDE/QT instead of Gnome/GTK. I agree that GTK is very bad compared to Qt but it's free from GPL, although if I write apps for X I use pure X no QT or GTK.
Um, you're using a proprietory platform (thanks Apple!) and you're complaining about GPL being too restrictive? Yikes...
Time will tell which of the Gnome or KDE licensing models will prevail. The whole purpose of the license isn't to encourage you to use it, but to encourage you to contribute back. Let's repeat that again. The GPL requires that you contribute back to the project.
If, as the common wisdom says, people won't use QT because they are required to either purchase or contribute code, then where will gnome get it's contributions? The desktop (both projects) needs applications and libraries that come from people solving problems. If someone has written a library or application that the desktop needs, but aren't required to contribute because of licensing, how does that benefit anyone except the someone who got something for nothing?
I'll give an example of the difference. Ximian build an exchange connector, closed source. KDE project is building a whole groupware solution based on GPL. And an exchange connector. Which project will win out in the end?
Derek
Geeze, you even put the well known wiggle troll to shame with your uninformed wish wash.
> convince the companies to start writing apps for KDE/QT
No need to convince them.
Anyone with proper understanding of business economics
will choose the most productive solution.
> Anyone with proper understanding of business economics will
> choose the most productive solution.
Even Microsoft does not charge $3000/developer for the right to
sell your applications built using their toolkit. So the
George Staikos argument is wrong.
QT is ripping businesses off.
Any one with a real understanding of business economics knows
that Microsoft's development tools are far more sophisticated,
faster and even cheaper. And Microsoft's tools directly target
>90% of the market while QT (if used under Windows) simply adds
another level of bloat and unwanted abstraction. Under *NIX,
it's great if it didn't cost so much for businesses.
Of course, for developing free software, it's very good.
Funny that, because quite a few businesses seem to be rather happy with Qt:
"The fact that we can easily develop and maintain mokey on four platforms has led to additional revenue and allowed us to reach a wider market, without a significant increase in cost" (Allan Jaenicke, Imagineer Systems Ltd.)
"Its clear for me, that one of my best decisions in my programming career was to move to Qt after almost 10 years of experience with the Microsoft APIs. Switching to Qt means for me to have a clearer API now while targeting all major computer platforms. That Qt makes this feasible for small companies at reasonable costs makes me indeed happy." (Rainer Goebel, Brain Innovation)
"Qt was the best solution for portability. Once we started using it, we said 'Hey, this stuff is really good!' We were able to see how powerful and clean it is, and started to reap a lot of benefits from using it that had nothing to do with portability. We love it now." (Les Engelbrecht, PGS)
"Microsoft has created toolkits, but I think Trolltech has beaten them on their own playing field." (Jeremy Todd, iZotope)
What was your name again?
Cheers,
Waldo
Waldo, you shouldn't waste your time with kids like that. The people who complain about Qt's license are the ones who cannot find good warez servers to steal other toolkits from... Truthfully, is the cost of 1 Qt enterprise license for any software house that makes money for a living less than one months salary for a developer. Now you a) spend that money rolling your own, or b) use Qt and possibly save even more.
Truth is man, the only people who have problems with Qt licensing just want to steal software... its not about freedom at that point, its about freeloading.
Just my 2c as someone who is making money at this
-ian reinhart geiser
Waldo, you shouldn't waste your time with kids like that. The people who complain about Qt's license are the ones who cannot find good warez servers to steal other toolkits from...
True, but now and then it is fun to show them how wrong they are :)
Cheers,
Kevin
> Truth is man, the only people who have problems with Qt licensing just want to steal software... its not about freedom at that point, its about freeloading.
Well put! I just can't believe how stupid people think everyone else is when they're spouting this garbage. Even worse is the thought that they are not merely deceiving, but actually this clueless. Aside from trying to write code on these platforms, for the clueless I offer these exercises.
1) Price MS .NET tools.
2) Price MSDN (Developer network subscription)
3) Price a top notch commercial editor.
4) Price add in libraries and tools for commercial development packages.
5) Explain how companies will continue to spend money for non monopoly driven software that they do not see acceptable returns on.
6) Explain why companies will buy supplemental libraries and packages in the first place.
7) Compare the cost of tools to the cost of man hours on a yearly basis for a programming seat.
Now all one has to do is compare the programming experience and results with various platforms and those most adverse to massochism will lean towards Qt/KDE. Even without coding though the anti Qt argument is so DOA you would think the only thing to do would be bury it quickly to make the smell go away.
Note that there is supposedly nothing wrong with giving nothing way or everything away, but giving something that is not everything away is being greedy. The end user shouldn't get software for free, the developer should. I read it like this... "We're all clueless here so you give me everything you haven't already given me and I'll charge everybody else for it and we'll call it even". Come to think of it, this pretty much personifies the SCO position, "Until we can make money off what you gave away for free you are bad people".
There's only one response, but this site doesn't need the profanity. ;-)
Don't forget stuff like the cost of Rational's tools ($10,000 for Rose), which are almost required in some markets, or version control tools ($4000 for ClearCase, ~$800 for Bitkeeper or Perforce), etc.
> Well put! I just can't believe how stupid people think everyone else is when
> they're spouting this garbage. Even worse is the thought that they are not
> merely deceiving, but actually this clueless.
Judging from the rhetoric, you too must be paid to work on KDE...
> Aside from trying to write code on these platforms, for the clueless I offer
> these exercises.
> 1) Price MS .NET tools.
You can get the framework and the compilers (no IDE but) for *free*.
That is all Qt offers anyway but at a much higher price.
> 2) Price MSDN (Developer network subscription)
Microsoft isn't exactly great at pricing either but at least they don't charge
for you just choosing to develop a commerical app for their platform.
> 4) Price add in libraries and tools for commercial development packages.
Use GNU libraries like zlib.
> they [Microsoft] don't charge for you just choosing to develop a commerical app for their platform.
...instead everyone (!) has to pay them directly or indirectly alone for using their platform to begin with. I'm not aware of any Microsoft operating system which is completely free of charge.
> I'm not aware of any Microsoft operating system which is completely free of
> charge.
approx. $300 isn't it? still less than $3000 and gets you more than a toolkit.
Keep in mind that with a Qt license you could for example set up a closed source Knoppix alike live CD for customers to use without any additional fee except whatever you charge. With "free" .NET you need your customer to have bought and installed a .NET capable system first which might add quite a lot to the cost you want them to pay you.
You are free to discuss the Qt commercial fee with Trolltech, public bitching is hardly changing anything.
I wish I had a salary like that over here... It would make my life very easy... I know about a company over here in Slovakia where the above sum would be sufficient for a software analyst's half a year's wages... So I really would have troubles starting a business with 4 developers and Qt.
Hiya Zoltan...
Send Trolltech a message and see what they can do for you :) I'm sure they'll help you out.
I can only agree on this - Trolltech is very polite when it comes to giving discount for startup companies(which from their point is a smart thing to do). I've done some Open Source consulting for software companies, while in contact with QT they told me this:
The solution is called the startup program, and trough this program,
qualified customers get special terms and conditions. In particular, they
get 6 months delayed payment.
It is also understood that we, i.e., the customer and TT, at the end of
this 6 month period will jointly evaluate how to proceed, at that we will
try to find appropriate solutions if money is somehow still a problem.
Please note that there is a somewhat high hassle factor for this program,
and that you will have to share with us some information that you might
consider internal.
You will also have to say somewhat more about your company to qualify for
this program (business idea, revenue model, annual revenues, no. employees,
when company was founded, external funding, and sources of such funding).
The ability to tell an interesting story is more important in the
qualification process than the fulfilling of some formal requirements. You
could for example start with some information about your product and what
type of market you are targeting.
Simply, send them an mail and discuss your situation - there is surely something to do about it.
Hope it helps,
Frans
so what your saying is that since you cannot afford the tools, you should get them for free? ( i know TT has a program for startups, but for a moment lets ignore that) maby you need to rethink your strategy. there are costs for starting a company and if this is the business plan you wish to follow, you have to live within those confines. my advise to you is to build up a business plan, look a the feasability of your idea and get some capital. i mean thats what billy and paul did, thats what steve and the woz did. crying that you cannot afford a tool, so you wont bother, will ensure that you keep the current salary you have, and that someone else will have the one that you want.
just my 2c as a business owner and not a programmer...
-ian reinhart geiser
> Waldo, you shouldn't waste your time with kids like that.
Ok so from the person who (tried to) ruin KWord's HTML filter RTL support _and_
made spell checking even worse than before, comes simple (albeit indirect) personal attacks.
> The people who complain about Qt's license are the ones who cannot find good
> warez servers to steal other toolkits from...
Wrong. I am against software piracy FULL STOP.
> Truthfully, is the cost of 1 Qt
> enterprise license for any software house that makes money for a living less
> than one months salary for a developer.
And with dotNET, it's zero months salary for a developer.
dotNET = bigger market share, bigger toolkit, modern language choice (C#).
Go figure.
> Truth is man, the only people who have problems with Qt licensing just want to
> steal software... its not about freedom at that point, its about freeloading.
I'll tell you what is theft: Trolltech charging so much.
> Just my 2c as someone who is making money at this
Isn't strange that those who defend "free" software the most loudly and benefit
from the backs of hardworking volunteers are those paid to do so? But oops,
free means freedom not price...
> dotNET = bigger market share
WRONG. but you probably mean bigger share as in by advertising it as "dotNET enabled" :-)
>> Waldo, you shouldn't waste your time with kids like that.
> Ok so from the person who (tried to) ruin KWord's HTML filter RTL support _and_
> made spell checking even worse than before, comes simple (albeit indirect) personal attacks.
Care to back that up? I could ignore the rest of the troll save for the part where I was responsible for breaking two areas of code I've never touched.
Sorry kid, you lost this time.
> Care to back that up? I could ignore the rest of the troll save for the part
> where I was responsible for breaking two areas of code I've never touched.
My sincere apologies. I confused you with ZR who seems to write in the same way.
I still don't appreciate your rhetoric though.
> Sorry kid, you lost this time.
Lost what?
> I'll tell you what is theft: Trolltech charging so much.
You mean you paid them too much even though you never thought its worth all the money they request? Your fault. You never worked on a proprietary commercially available application but decided to complain for everyone else? Thanks for the service, but no thanks. You accuse Trolltech of theft for asking for money when you intend to make money using their product, while at the same time you still state you are against software piracy and praises stuff by Microsoft (so you surely paid them for all their stuff to be able to make up your mind)? Go away, troll.
> > I'll tell you what is theft: Trolltech charging so much.
> You mean you paid them too much even though you never thought its worth all
> the money they request? Your fault.
No, it's a figure of speech. Your fault for not reading properly :P
> praises stuff by Microsoft (so you surely paid them for all their stuff to be
> able to make up your mind)?
I did pay, yes - but only for the operating system and office - not for their
compiler and dotNET toolkit.
Microsoft charges less for similar products!!! Nothing for dotNET framework
(see http://www.microsoft.com/net if you don't believe me)
I don't thank MS for selling their products at such high prices or their
anti-competitive behaviour. But what I think is outrageous is that the only
half-decent toolkit for *NIX costs so much more than even MS. Trolltech
essentially holds a monopoly in the *NIX Widget Toolkit market (please don't
claim than gtk is a factor...) - now if Linux is really going to be more
popular and set to beat Windows, wouldn't you be worried at the cost?
> Go away, troll.
No, I think trolltech should stay :P
But their prices shouldn't.
Ok, let me try your kind of "figure of speech" as well.
I would pay, yes - but only for the for a toolkit I'm actually using for development - not for the operating system and desktop environment and system integration and everything else.
Overall Trolltech charges less for similar products even if I want to make a carbon copy business case!!! Nothing for using their Qt framework and everything below and above it (see http://www.trolltech.com/products/qt/freelicense.html if you don't believe me), the only time I actually need to pay some money is when I want something using Qt to be closed source (most likely for making money myself this way, so I'm perfectly fine with that). Those who prefer not to pay anyone even while using their stuff for making themselves money are freeloaders in my eyes. They are welcome to use particular abuse-allowing toolkits instead. - Now the developers who try to make money with open source by wanting to close it first are a tiny minority of all Linux users, and I'm happily spreading Knoppix based live CD's with no cost besides the CDR in my circle of friends, something that is clearly impossible with the "free" .NET.
Some notes: *Trolltech welcomes you to discuss the price with you if you actually are a potential customer. All this public bitching about Trolltech's official prices is generally trolling of people who are or want to stay uninformed. *Trolltech's business policy basically boils down to: You are allowed to develope using their Qt for free as long as you contribute your source, and you have to pay the Qt developers for it as soon as you intend to keep your source closed (for whatever reason). This is imo a great way to ensure that everyone who uses Qt profits of others also using Qt. *Since when does Qt "essentially holds a monopoly"? I might actually want that to be the case (for above mentioned reason that everyone could profit of it), but it surely is not at all the case right now.
What are we in? An "anon" clones war?
> Ok, let me try your kind of "figure of speech" as well.
Your sarcasm and parody is admirable but you obviously (still) don't understand my comment about "theft" and what "figure of speech" means (search it up somewhere; it's not a term I made up).
> I would pay, yes - but only for the for a toolkit I'm actually using for
> development - not for the operating system and desktop environment and system
> integration and everything else.
Troll Tech does not produce operating systems. Your argument is void like SCO's.
> Overall Trolltech charges less for similar products even if I want to make a
> carbon copy business case!!!
Really? I want to sell my latest and greatest version of my program.
Microsoft: approx. $300 for Windows OEM (IIRC) per developer/machine + $0 for dotNET framework and compiler
GNU: approx. $0 (best case) for Linux per developer/machine + $3000/developer
Figure out the maths yourself. For x (where x = number of developers), the Microsoft solution is always cheaper (if x > 0).
> Nothing for using their Qt framework and everything below and above it (see
> http://www.trolltech.com/products/qt/freelicense.html if you don't believe
> me), the only time I actually need to pay some money is when I want something
> using Qt to be closed source (most likely for making money myself this way,
> so I'm perfectly fine with that).
Thank you for finally acknowledging the point in dispute. I simply refuse to pay such prices per developer to develop closed source software. $3000 is ridiculous and kills mom-and-dad or teenager startups. I could buy a whole new, damn good computer for $3000.
> Those who prefer not to pay anyone even while using their stuff for making
> themselves money are freeloaders in my eyes.
Then why don't you agree to pay for Windows?
I pay for Windows because I think $300 for operating system that can run 90% of the software with eye candy and all and binary compatibility for more than 6 months (unless you like recompiling all your software) and provides a free (in terms of beer) toolkit is worth it. While $3000 gives me just a toolkit that has less functionality?
> They are welcome to use particular abuse-allowing toolkits instead. - Now the
> developers who try to make money with open source by wanting to close it
> first are a tiny minority of all Linux users, and I'm happily spreading
> Knoppix based live CD's with no cost besides the CDR in my circle of friends,
> something that is clearly impossible with the "free" .NET.
Have you heard of GNU's Mono?
> Some notes: *Trolltech welcomes you to discuss the price with you if you
> actually are a potential customer.
So you're a representative of Trolltech? What's your real name? I'd like to make a complaint to your supervisor about your PR skills.
> All this public bitching about Trolltech's official prices is generally
> trolling of people who are or want to stay uninformed.
So you stay with the politically correct answers and accuse anyone that has different views (FreeBSD-style views, in fact) of trolling?
> *Trolltech's business policy basically boils down to: ...
> and you have to pay the Qt developers for it as soon as you intend to keep
> your source closed (for whatever reason).
And charges more than Microsoft!!!
> *Since when does Qt "essentially holds a monopoly"?
It's an effective monopoly like Microsoft. There is simply no competition in the Linux toolkit market. GTK is inferior and all other toolkits are either obsolete or even worse. Qt owns the market and is abusing its position.
> What are we in? An "anon" clones war?
I have a good reason to try to be anonymous - I'm saying politically incorrect stuff. But why are you anonymous?
> Funny that, because quite a few businesses seem to be rather happy with Qt
Of course there are businesses that are happy with Qt. But monopoly or not,
it is safe to say that there are more businesses that are happy with Microsoft's
offerings (considering they own >94% of the market).
Microsoft offers the dotNET Framework and a compilers (C#, VB.Net) for *free*.
You can develop under those platforms (and even sell the programs you make)
NO STRINGS ATTACHED. You don't have to pay $3000/developer.
And with Mono under development, dotNET will be cross-platform and indirectly
endorsed by GNU. And even if dotNET never reaches the portability of Qt,
remember this: Microsoft owns >94% of the market - a cross-platform toolkit
will, at most, only give you access to an extra 6%. It is not worth retraining
employees to use another, less powerful, buggy (e.g. Qt 3.2.0) and far more
expensive toolkit. Efforts should be invested in solidifying commerical
products in more viable markets (try explaining to joe user why they should be
using linux - the free argument simply doesn't work anymore especially where
in the case of Qt, it is not even free beer).
I fail to understand your reasoning. You seem to be saying that because Microsoft uses illegal means (such as OEM deals) to maintain a monopoly on desktop computer operating systems, this somehow implies that businesses rather use Microsoft development tools than Qt? And that should lead me to disregard evidence to the contrary why exactly?
> And with Mono under development, dotNET will be cross-platform and
> indirectly endorsed by GNU.
Compared to Qt, which is available now already, is cross-platform now already and is directly endorsed by TrollTech who can also provide you with support and on-site training.
> Microsoft owns >94% of the market - a cross-platform toolkit will, at most,
> only give you access to an extra 6%
6% of the desktop market is a significant number of potential customers, especially if you can enter that market first while your direct competitors are still waiting for dotNET to be released. You may also want to consider the growth in the Linux desktop market that IDC predicts for the next few years.
Cheers,
Waldo
> I fail to understand your reasoning. You seem to be saying that because
> Microsoft uses illegal means (such as OEM deals) to maintain a monopoly on
> desktop computer operating systems, this somehow implies that businesses
> rather use Microsoft development tools than Qt?
I believe this is the reason though. They have used evil tactics to maintain
market share and businesses prefer to use Microsoft endorsed tools because:
a) they are cheaper or free!!! (this amazed me when I read about Trolltech's licensing scheme). If Linux ever dominates the market, I predict Trolltech
will be the new Microsoft but will charge even more!
b) it has "big name" backing. If you say that it's a "dotNET application" it will automatically sell - compare that with "Qt application". Has anyone
in that 94% heard of Qt?
> And that should lead me to
> disregard evidence to the contrary why exactly?
Listen to the market. That's the unfortunate reality. Microsoft is dominant
and businesses are more willing to go with them.
> > And with Mono under development, dotNET will be cross-platform and
> > indirectly endorsed by GNU.
> Compared to Qt, which is available now already, is cross-platform now already
> and is directly endorsed by TrollTech who can also provide you with support
> and on-site training.
True but look at how slow they are at accepting patches. And look at bugs like
QString crashes or QDomDocument reports the wrong parent in Qt 3.2.0. These
are fatal bugs - did they test properly or did they leave those bugs to be
found by the hardworking KDE guinea pigs/developers to find? Imagine if
Microsoft released toolkits like that - and MS has a record of unreliability!
> > Microsoft owns >94% of the market - a cross-platform toolkit will, at most,
> > only give you access to an extra 6%
> 6% of the desktop market is a significant number of potential customers,
> especially if you can enter that market first while your direct competitors
> are still waiting for dotNET to be released.
True, I agree with that point but:
> You may also want to consider the
> growth in the Linux desktop market that IDC predicts for the next few years.
I can't agree with this. GNU has being going on about the free operating
system rhetoric for maybe at least 20 years. I read Linux articles back in
2000 saying that it was "almost" about to take the desktop. Since then, I
have been bitterly disappointed:
0. The most popular UNIX is not Linux. It is actually MacOS X. It has 5
times the market share just because of translucent cases despite the fact
that it costs a truckload.
1. The only office suite that can read Word documents is OO, slow as hell and
not integrated with KDE.
2. Linux distros (esp. Mandrake) DO NOT TEST their releases. Bugs like
floppy-cannot-be-used-without-100-mount-and-umount-commands,
screen-mode-cannot-be-changed-without-resetting-X (until very recently),
kernel corrupts filesystem (2.4.3), kernel literally "burns" your CD-ROMs
(Mandrake 9.2), takes longers to boot than Windows because they couldn't
be bothered parallelizing startup, at least 10 different, unrelated apps
to configure your system (DrakConf/YaST/linuxconf, KControl, Webmin...).
GIMP is unusable. No reasonable, one-stop media player solution
(name the formats that noatun can play - I can count them with 1 hand).
3. Contrary to RN's remarks about the remarkable quality of KDE releases:
- ark prevents you from accessing files because of "Permission denied"
(it was a Qt bug but still, explain that to any user)
- annoying selection behaviour (until 3.0/freedesktop.org)
- KOffice does not read any useful documents what so ever
- KDE is slow (run it even on a 1.6 Ghz CPU - the difference with Windows
is shocking even with recent KDE versions)
- Konqueror is famous for Javascript not working (and still is)
- Konqueror control modules don't update the settings until you restart
Konqueror (until recently, apparently)
- KMail deletes the temporary file for the attachment when you change email
- KMail compact does not work
- ARTS sucks all your CPU and non-ARTS aware progs usually block on startup
(e.g. RealPlayer) and looks like Linux is unreliable
- Kicker crashes about twice every session (reproduceable in 3.2 Beta even)
- Backtrace feature in Crash Dialog has never worked (even in debug build)
Now probably some of these bugs are already fixed. But think about the
release date of the KDE version my users were using - 2002 (3.0). How
can you expect users to use that stuff when a rival GUI (Windows XP)
has been developed to such a level of refinement that it has a movie editor?
And why is it that every time someone mentions the bleeding obvious like KDE is
slow or GPL/QPL is not a reasonable license for a toolkit or KOffice sucks,
that they get flamed? About the only person who doesn't resort to personal
attacks to cover up for the lack of an argument, on this forum, is you.
>KOffice does not read any useful documents what so ever
I fing It could work beter if microsoft dont change the specifications, on .doc format for exempl, evry relases (word xp document is offen unreadebel with word 2000). This dont help developers...
And as for me, I chuse antiword + latex (kile works wery well for my)
PS : Sory for a bad englich
tchak
>> a) they are cheaper or free!!! (this amazed me when I read about Trolltech's licensing scheme). If Linux ever dominates the market, I predict Trolltech will be the new Microsoft but will charge even more!
So what? Trolltech charges per developer who want to keep his work closed source (mostly likely for earning money this way), while Microsoft charges per every single desktop/server/client installation. Regardless Qt is ensured to be available to open source software free of charge also in the future, read http://www.kde.org/whatiskde/kdefreeqtfoundation.php
Microsoft on the other hand does not offer an all free development package, regardless in what combination and regardless how often people state that .NET per se is "free".
>> b) it has "big name" backing. If you say that it's a "dotNET application" it will automatically sell - compare that with "Qt application". Has anyone in that 94% heard of Qt?
It doesn't matter for Qt being a backend to be popular, actually most user should not have to care about the backend, why should that change with .NET? And I strongly doubt 94% heard of .NET, even after all the marketing after Microsoft unveiling of .NET in 22th June 2000 (so more than 3 years ago).
0. Care to back that with actual reliable data?
1. You mean you are working on it? Besides why do you need support for proprietary Word files? And you do know that KDE is not responsible for OpenOffice.org's integration into KDE, don't you?
2. You were talking about market above, why don't you support other distros with better approaches or offer one yourself?
3. Can't reproduce.
If some of them are fixed already then what are you here to complain? That Qt and KDE are not bug free? And XP has a movie editor? How is that an indication of "refinement"?
One most likely get flamed for making claims one don't care to back up with actual data while others didn't experience any of the mentioned problems, thus consider the poster a troll. To me it looks like you a) had wrong expectations and b) were making use of some companies service while not sending them your complaints but instead resorting to complaining to some projects instead. I hope you are aware of the fact that project mostly show progress due to contributions, not due to complaints which are mostly ignored.
> > a) they are cheaper or free!!! (this amazed me when I read
> > about Trolltech's licensing scheme). If Linux ever dominates the market,
> > I predict Trolltech will be the new Microsoft but will charge even more!
> So what? Trolltech charges per developer who want to keep his work closed
> source (mostly likely for earning money this way), while Microsoft charges
> per every single desktop/server/client installation.
I would argue that the number of developers >= number of computers.
So with the per-developer-toolkit scheme of Trolltech's you pay more than per-computer-operating-system + free toolkit scheme of Microsoft's.
> Regardless Qt is ensured
> to be available to open source software free of charge also in the future,
> read http://www.kde.org/whatiskde/kdefreeqtfoundation.php
No, what if a company hostile to Qt/opensource buys out Trolltech. They could produce a broken toolkit (to the point that it's unusable) every year and KDE would either have to use it or fork the last good Qt. The KDE 2 Programming book's reasoning about there being pro-KDE developers in Trolltech so that this can't happen is wrong because they could simply be fired by the new management.
Think Steve Jobbs.
> Microsoft on the other hand does not offer an all free development package,
Nor does any GNU + Trolltech combination for producing commerical software.
Microsoft just charges less for equivalent or better.
> and regardless how often people state that .NET per se is "free".
For developing commerical apps:
.NET is free in terms of both speech and beer.
Qt is free only in terms of speech.
> 0. Care to back that with actual reliable data?
Seems a bit out of date (they claim only 3x):
http://www.computeruser.com/articles/2105,4,43,1,0501,02.html
but I'm sure you can google better than I can.
> 1. You mean you are working on it?
Correct.
> Besides why do you need support for proprietary Word files?
Oh come on, that is ignorant. The vast majority of people use Microsoft Word. Please don't give me that kind of argument. Trying to win over a majority of users already happy with their documents to opensource formats (that are only supported by either buggy or bloated free office suites) will not work. The GNU free rhetoric hasn't worked for at least 10 or 15 years.
> And you do know that KDE is not responsible for
> OpenOffice.org's integration into KDE, don't you?
Yes but I was making a point about why I doubt Linux will become mainstream any time soon and hence why concentrating efforts on that 6% of the market is a waste of time.
> 2. You were talking about market above, why don't you support other distros
The only free (as in money) one that isn't misguided appears to be ArkLinux.
But I simply haven't found the time to try it.
> with better approaches or offer one yourself?
Find me 100 developers willing to help someone they've never heard of.
> 3. Can't reproduce.
- so you weren't using KDE before they fixed the selection behaviour (read the Qt documentation on QClipboard)?
- so you believe that KOffice is usable (try reading a more than basic Word document with images, try inputting large roman numerals as counters, try giving it xml with out of range attribute values, try opening any document in KWord (other than KWord format) and saving it back and see how much formatting and content you lose)?
- if KDE wasn't slow, there would be a kde optimize list. It is damn obvious it is slow.
- write in the Mozilla forums (if they have any), how good Konqueror is compared to Mozilla and they will probably call you a troll.
- the KMail temporary file for attachment is a known bug. Ask on the KMail lists. Maybe it's already fixed, don't know but at least it was there in 2002 (when even Microsoft had gotten it right maybe 2 years or more before that).
- KMail compact bug I believe is also quite well known
- you're telling me you can't reproduce the ARTS glitches? You are either incompetent or ignorant.
- Kicker speaks for itself. Just open a fair number of windows and close one after a long time and it will probably crash. Hard to reproduce consistently I admit but IT HAPPENS. Explain this to people you are trying to move over to Linux because it's "free" and "stable".
> If some of them are fixed already then what are you here to complain? That Qt
> and KDE are not bug free?
My point was that Linux is simply not going to be ready for mass market anytime soon. If you can have such disasterous bugs while Windows is actually usable, your operating system will never get to market.
> And XP has a movie editor? How is that an indication of "refinement"?
Should be obvious. An operating system in its infancy will still be struggling to get what users see as basic apps like word processors, web browsers right; while more mature ones will concentrate on more elaborate features.
> One most likely get flamed for making claims one don't care to back up with
> actual data
No, one gets flamed for speaking political incorrectness.
> while others didn't experience any of the mentioned problems
There are few KDE users (compared to Windows) and hence the chance of problems appearing is lower, and the chance that someone would have a similar setup to me is even lower and the chance of those bugs being reported is even lower than that.
> thus consider the poster a troll.
I don't work for "troll"tech, haha :)
Look, you can call me a troll, they can call me a troll but this is the price of free speech.
> To me it looks like you a) had wrong expectations
We are in total agreement here. I am quite disappointed with Linux.
> and b) were making use of some companies service while not sending them your
> complaints but instead resorting to complaining to some projects instead.
So it's bad practice to talk about the problems with the underlying toolkit in a KDE forum?
> I hope you are aware of the fact that project mostly show progress due to
> contributions,
It would be enlightening if I could reveal my relation to KDE but I can't because I'll be persecuted forever.
> not due to complaints which are mostly ignored.
You can ignore free speech if you want. You ignore the fact that you like being ripped off by a company.
Have you ever *used* MFC? And its not another layer of unwanted abstraction. Mac and Linux are up-and-coming, and it would be wise for many companies to take into account the portability of their code-base long term. This is especially true for companies like Adobe, Macromedia, etc, that need Mac compatibility because the market demands it, and need to consider Linux compatibility because Linux is making large gains in parts of the media industry.
You are unfamiliar with capitalism, apparently.
In the capitalist theory, as a supplier, you charge whatever you want.
As long as you charge below "what the market will bear", you do fine.
If you charge more, you do badly, and your competition does better, and in the long term, you die.
The exception to that, of course is monopoly pricing, where the threshold to entry of competition is too high, and you can charge higher than expected.
Since Troll Tech can hardl be described as having a monopoly of anything, the charge of them being "ripping businesses off" is not only wrong, it's stupid.
In addition, saying "QT (if used under Windows) simply adds
another level of bloat and unwanted abstraction." is even technically wrong, since Qt in windows doesn't use the native toolkit but replaces it (so the number of layers is identical).
We all here are now a little more stupid for reading your post.
> In the capitalist theory, as a supplier, you charge whatever you want.
> As long as you charge below "what the market will bear", you do fine.
that's right; i'll be writing to the CEO of TT to ask them to charge
$12000/developer instead of only $3000/developer as surely the market can
bear that. wow, .NET costs $0/developer...
> In addition, saying "QT (if used under Windows) simply adds
> another level of bloat and unwanted abstraction." is even technically wrong,
> since Qt in windows doesn't use the native toolkit but replaces it (so the
> number of layers is identical).
no, it's a layer of abstraction and it's another one. therefore the original
posters statement was correct.
Er... just because you say "charge 12000" that doesn't mean that the market will bear that. You are not the market.
And, dear, saying "adds another level of bloat and unwanted abstraction" is not the same as "it's another layer of astraction" and that is not the same
as "it's a layer of abstraction" and "it's another one".
The details, I leave as homework.
> Er... just because you say "charge 12000" that doesn't mean that the market will
> bear that. You are not the market.
So what makes you think the market bears $3000?
I repeat, Microsoft charges nothing for the dotNET Framework.
Why do you think e.g. Mandrake uses GTK for their tools despite having KDE as their default desktop?
If Linux becomes more popular, I assure you that this Qt issue will cause *real* trouble.
What makes me think the market bears $3000: That Troll Tech doesn´t seem to be going under. Yes, it´s flimsy, but it´s pretty much all the evidence anyone has about any price/market relation unless you have inside data.
Microsoft charges nothing for dotNET? I don´t care, it doesn´t work on the OS I use.
Regarding Mandrake, since their tools are GPL, the license is obviously not the problem. About the reasons, I have no idea, since I have no data.
If linux becomes more popular, Qt will cause trouble? For who? Not for me, really, since the stuff I develop has a Qt-compatible license.
> What makes me think the market bears $3000: That Troll Tech doesn´t seem to
> be going under. Yes, it´s flimsy, but it´s pretty much all the evidence
> anyone has about any price/market relation unless you have inside data.
I'm suggesting that there's massive price elasticity and that Troll Tech (and Linux and KDE) could be gaining a LOT more ground if they charge less (or nothing at all).
> Microsoft charges nothing for dotNET?
> I don´t care, it doesn´t work on the OS I use.
But the point is that this doesn't apply the overwhelming majority of users.
I bet someone will eventually start up FreeQt again under a BSD licence when and if Linux becomes more popular. And I hope to see Troll Tech cloned and priced out of the market if they are charging so ridiculously - worse than similar (or better) products from even the worst monopoly (MS).
Hello people,
Seems that you are all blind (or pretend to be), and banning out the people who post a different opinion. With all respect even microsoft does not do such censoring as you do. Hell you just deleted (as i expected) the post I replied.
Ok, now the conclusion. Do you know why RMS did LGPL - for libraries. GPL for apps, LGPL for libs.
And do you know what is truly open? It's BSD! I replaced recently all linuxes with FreeBSD.
If something is stated to be a Open Source it must be really open like BSD, everything else is so called GPL tirany or as some guys call it "Dual Licensing". If one is willing to contribute back he must not be forced to do such (because of restrictions of (L)GPL) but because of the good will to help out.
Making something "Dual Licensed" is like giving to the community a proprietary software for Free trial. For small or big business decision to rely on not-open standard and proprietary library is a bad choice. That's why companies like Sun and Novel choose LGPL to rely on instead of GPL/QT.
I had a lot of discussions with my friends about the future of this industry, and everyone is scared to use GPL to rely on, it wasn't my thought that making a library under GPL is a crime but it's right definition of what GPL and Dual Licensing causes.
And let me tell you what is real open standard and open source: it's licenses like X and BSD. X is de facto a standard for UNIXES, Apache is standard too, BSD is the true UNIX and still the best standard (Linux is just a UNIX imitation).
real free OPEN SOURCE LIBRARY = free of GPL
PS: Apple really freed KHTML of GPL, no one could admit it, KHTML is now free of QT. Apple's toolkit for writing apps may be proprietary but they will not charge anyone for writing apps for their platform, and one should not be scared of being forced to give his source - would do if he wants.
PS2: Some of you may be blind, but don't try to blind the community by deleting posts
"And do you know what is truly open? It's BSD!"
I hope you don't get censored. But I disagree. Look, the most damaging company for the worldwide computer industry, microsoft, has benefited enormously from the BSD license: they were able to stabilize their horrible OS in early 2000 by using BSD code, and now they are in an even stronger position to abuse of their power. They even have a decent server product line to offer (this was not the case before).
Being totally permissive with free software is not necessarilly good. The GPL has done for free/open software much more than the BSD license has. Take a look at how popular is the software produced with one license or the other. I, for one, would never release code written in my spare time, to get used by a monopoly like MS.
I also like the LGPL for libraries, but this is another story ...
Don't talk about censoring. Wiggle is a banned user for maybe 2 years now for site abuse. Anton Velev is being a moron and/or is Wiggle under disguise.
Ok, I apologize for talking "censorship". I don't see where Anton is being a moron though, I just disagree with most of what he says, but that doesn't make him (or me for that sake) a moron ...
perhaps ignorance more than moron =)
He goes around accusing people of being blind or censoring and generally has a bad attitude. He talks about how he uses Safari which is CLOSED SOURCE but which uses KHTML only because it's not GPL. If that's not incoherent nonsense, I don't know what is.
Sorry for calling him a moron, but he acts like one and fits the description.