Slashdot Mirror

e8johan writes "The KDE PIM Team will integrate all their applications into one common interface and create an Outlook-like application.This is being done in the Kroupware project commissioned by the German government. There is a prototype of KOrganizer with KMain embedded into it (shots 1, 2), and another prototype with KMain running as a KPart in Kaplan (shot 1, 2, 3). This looks hopeful and if they manage to build the application as flexible and modular as other KDE projects this will hopefully mature into something great." Kroupware is a catchy name, but I wonder if the KDE team is aware of the English word croup.

e8johan writes "The KDE PIM Team will integrate all their applications into one common interface and create an Outlook-like application.This is being done in the Kroupware project commissioned by the German government. There is a prototype of KOrganizer with KMain embedded into it (shots 1, 2), and another prototype with KMain running as a KPart in Kaplan (shot 1, 2, 3). This looks hopeful and if they manage to build the application as flexible and modular as other KDE projects this will hopefully mature into something great." Kroupware is a catchy name, but I wonder if the KDE team is aware of the English word croup.

e8johan writes "The KDE PIM Team will integrate all their applications into one common interface and create an Outlook-like application.This is being done in the Kroupware project commissioned by the German government. There is a prototype of KOrganizer with KMain embedded into it (shots 1, 2), and another prototype with KMain running as a KPart in Kaplan (shot 1, 2, 3). This looks hopeful and if they manage to build the application as flexible and modular as other KDE projects this will hopefully mature into something great." Kroupware is a catchy name, but I wonder if the KDE team is aware of the English word croup.

navindra writes "KDE's component technology, KParts, has been extended to support out-of-process embedding of components theoretically including GTK components, Bonobo, and OpenOffice UNO components. Even better, the same technology could be potentially be used by GNOME to embed KDE components. Here are some screenshots of Konqueror embedding the Mozilla rendering component, and the whitepaper on XParts. This appears to be an important step forward in the interoperability of free desktops." The screenshots page has an excellent overview of what this does, and what it means. This is extremely impressive stuff people.

navindra writes "KDE's component technology, KParts, has been extended to support out-of-process embedding of components theoretically including GTK components, Bonobo, and OpenOffice UNO components. Even better, the same technology could be potentially be used by GNOME to embed KDE components. Here are some screenshots of Konqueror embedding the Mozilla rendering component, and the whitepaper on XParts. This appears to be an important step forward in the interoperability of free desktops." The screenshots page has an excellent overview of what this does, and what it means. This is extremely impressive stuff people.

While browsing through last week's discussion on GUI frameworks I noticed some discussion on the non-free nature of Troll Tech's Qt widget library. Frank Faubert wrote in with a similar question a while ago, so I figure it might be time to get your thoughts on this issue, and the larger question that encompases it: Is Open Source on Windows is less important than Open Source on Unix? Click below for Franks words on this subject.

The following was written by Frank Faubert

With the release of Qt 2.0, Troll Tech has been kind enough to license the Unix/X11 version of their flagship product under an open source license for use with other open source projects. Why are they doing this? According to their web site it's because they "have a strong dedication to the free software movement" and "believe that it is the most interesting alternative to Microsoft's near-monopoly situation on desktop software". What do they get out of it? From the same page, they hope to "spread usage of Qt around the world". This is all well and good, and looks like a win/win for everyone involved, but I have one lingering question... What about Windows?

If two of the goals of the Qt Free Edition are to help the free software movement and spread the usage of Qt, why not release the Windows edition under the same license? There are many open source projects which run on Windows as well as Unix (Apache, Mozilla, Perl, CVS, and AbiWord just to name a few); why should these packages be discriminated against.

Consider Apache for a moment. Porting Apache to Windows has helped it capture roughly 57% of the web server market which has caused Microsoft no end of aggravation. However, if somebody wanted to write a cross platform GUI configuration utility for Apache using Qt, they would not be able to release it under Windows. I fail to see how this meets the goals of the Qt Free Edition.

Like it or not, Windows has a monopoly on the desktop market, and it is going to take quite a while for anything to change that. Having more open source software that runs on Windows as well as UNIX can only help facilitate that change. Releasing the Qt Free Edition for Windows would be a big step in that direction.

Open source software that runs on Windows is no less open than its Unix counterparts, and should not be treated that way. I ask anyone who is reading this to either tell me that I am insane, or to write to Troll Tech and ask them to consider releasing the Qt Free Edition for Windows. Questions 20 and 21 of their FAQ prove they often get requests for this. If more of us ask...

Ed: Me personally, I believe that Troll Tech has the right to market their product in whatever way they wish, and I honestly believe that Qt under Windows is a huge achievement and wish them the best in its development. However, what about the folks that wish to port their Open Source Qt Application from Unix to Windows? Does development under Windows intrinsically cut a developer off from a few of the most important resources found in any Open Sourced project (those being right tools for the job, and the programming minds themselves)? Is there even a good solution for this situation?

While browsing through last week's discussion on GUI frameworks I noticed some discussion on the non-free nature of Troll Tech's Qt widget library. Frank Faubert wrote in with a similar question a while ago, so I figure it might be time to get your thoughts on this issue, and the larger question that encompases it: Is Open Source on Windows is less important than Open Source on Unix? Click below for Franks words on this subject.

The following was written by Frank Faubert

With the release of Qt 2.0, Troll Tech has been kind enough to license the Unix/X11 version of their flagship product under an open source license for use with other open source projects. Why are they doing this? According to their web site it's because they "have a strong dedication to the free software movement" and "believe that it is the most interesting alternative to Microsoft's near-monopoly situation on desktop software". What do they get out of it? From the same page, they hope to "spread usage of Qt around the world". This is all well and good, and looks like a win/win for everyone involved, but I have one lingering question... What about Windows?

If two of the goals of the Qt Free Edition are to help the free software movement and spread the usage of Qt, why not release the Windows edition under the same license? There are many open source projects which run on Windows as well as Unix (Apache, Mozilla, Perl, CVS, and AbiWord just to name a few); why should these packages be discriminated against.

Consider Apache for a moment. Porting Apache to Windows has helped it capture roughly 57% of the web server market which has caused Microsoft no end of aggravation. However, if somebody wanted to write a cross platform GUI configuration utility for Apache using Qt, they would not be able to release it under Windows. I fail to see how this meets the goals of the Qt Free Edition.

Like it or not, Windows has a monopoly on the desktop market, and it is going to take quite a while for anything to change that. Having more open source software that runs on Windows as well as UNIX can only help facilitate that change. Releasing the Qt Free Edition for Windows would be a big step in that direction.

Open source software that runs on Windows is no less open than its Unix counterparts, and should not be treated that way. I ask anyone who is reading this to either tell me that I am insane, or to write to Troll Tech and ask them to consider releasing the Qt Free Edition for Windows. Questions 20 and 21 of their FAQ prove they often get requests for this. If more of us ask...

Ed: Me personally, I believe that Troll Tech has the right to market their product in whatever way they wish, and I honestly believe that Qt under Windows is a huge achievement and wish them the best in its development. However, what about the folks that wish to port their Open Source Qt Application from Unix to Windows? Does development under Windows intrinsically cut a developer off from a few of the most important resources found in any Open Sourced project (those being right tools for the job, and the programming minds themselves)? Is there even a good solution for this situation?

While browsing through last week's discussion on GUI frameworks I noticed some discussion on the non-free nature of Troll Tech's Qt widget library. Frank Faubert wrote in with a similar question a while ago, so I figure it might be time to get your thoughts on this issue, and the larger question that encompases it: Is Open Source on Windows is less important than Open Source on Unix? Click below for Franks words on this subject.

The following was written by Frank Faubert

With the release of Qt 2.0, Troll Tech has been kind enough to license the Unix/X11 version of their flagship product under an open source license for use with other open source projects. Why are they doing this? According to their web site it's because they "have a strong dedication to the free software movement" and "believe that it is the most interesting alternative to Microsoft's near-monopoly situation on desktop software". What do they get out of it? From the same page, they hope to "spread usage of Qt around the world". This is all well and good, and looks like a win/win for everyone involved, but I have one lingering question... What about Windows?

If two of the goals of the Qt Free Edition are to help the free software movement and spread the usage of Qt, why not release the Windows edition under the same license? There are many open source projects which run on Windows as well as Unix (Apache, Mozilla, Perl, CVS, and AbiWord just to name a few); why should these packages be discriminated against.

Consider Apache for a moment. Porting Apache to Windows has helped it capture roughly 57% of the web server market which has caused Microsoft no end of aggravation. However, if somebody wanted to write a cross platform GUI configuration utility for Apache using Qt, they would not be able to release it under Windows. I fail to see how this meets the goals of the Qt Free Edition.

Like it or not, Windows has a monopoly on the desktop market, and it is going to take quite a while for anything to change that. Having more open source software that runs on Windows as well as UNIX can only help facilitate that change. Releasing the Qt Free Edition for Windows would be a big step in that direction.

Open source software that runs on Windows is no less open than its Unix counterparts, and should not be treated that way. I ask anyone who is reading this to either tell me that I am insane, or to write to Troll Tech and ask them to consider releasing the Qt Free Edition for Windows. Questions 20 and 21 of their FAQ prove they often get requests for this. If more of us ask...

Ed: Me personally, I believe that Troll Tech has the right to market their product in whatever way they wish, and I honestly believe that Qt under Windows is a huge achievement and wish them the best in its development. However, what about the folks that wish to port their Open Source Qt Application from Unix to Windows? Does development under Windows intrinsically cut a developer off from a few of the most important resources found in any Open Sourced project (those being right tools for the job, and the programming minds themselves)? Is there even a good solution for this situation?

ReadParse writes "From our Troll friends come some screenshots of the anticipated (by some) GUI Caldera Installation that Troll and Caldera collaborated on. " It looks so... modern.

ReadParse writes "From our Troll friends come some screenshots of the anticipated (by some) GUI Caldera Installation that Troll and Caldera collaborated on. " It looks so... modern.

kris writes "Those funky Trolls up there north have released Version 2.0 of the Qt library. Unlike Version 1, this one is available under the QPL Open Source license, which is in compliance with the Debian Free Software Guidelines and qualifies as Open Source. Qt 2.0 also contains tons of changes and improvements, such as Unicode support, better I18N, rich text, theming and thousands of other things. You want to download their stuff to give it a try. "

kris writes "Those funky Trolls up there north have released Version 2.0 of the Qt library. Unlike Version 1, this one is available under the QPL Open Source license, which is in compliance with the Debian Free Software Guidelines and qualifies as Open Source. Qt 2.0 also contains tons of changes and improvements, such as Unicode support, better I18N, rich text, theming and thousands of other things. You want to download their stuff to give it a try. "

kris writes "Those funky Trolls up there north have released Version 2.0 of the Qt library. Unlike Version 1, this one is available under the QPL Open Source license, which is in compliance with the Debian Free Software Guidelines and qualifies as Open Source. Qt 2.0 also contains tons of changes and improvements, such as Unicode support, better I18N, rich text, theming and thousands of other things. You want to download their stuff to give it a try. "

kris writes "Those funky Trolls up there north have released Version 2.0 of the Qt library. Unlike Version 1, this one is available under the QPL Open Source license, which is in compliance with the Debian Free Software Guidelines and qualifies as Open Source. Qt 2.0 also contains tons of changes and improvements, such as Unicode support, better I18N, rich text, theming and thousands of other things. You want to download their stuff to give it a try. "

kris writes "Those funky Trolls up there north have released Version 2.0 of the Qt library. Unlike Version 1, this one is available under the QPL Open Source license, which is in compliance with the Debian Free Software Guidelines and qualifies as Open Source. Qt 2.0 also contains tons of changes and improvements, such as Unicode support, better I18N, rich text, theming and thousands of other things. You want to download their stuff to give it a try. "

Idris Samawi writes "QPL 1.0 Released The new license for the Qt Free Edition just announced by Troll Tech". The release includes a few quotes, but a dearth of information about the actual license. I'm curious though. Two free desktops are an amazing feat!

George Russell writes "There is a new QPL draft available. On a less contentious note, Qt 1.42 is out. " It is important to note that the QPL isn't yet finalized, so there's still much discussion to be had. Could we try to keep the flames down on this one, please?

TrollTech has announced that they will now be distributing their Qt toolkit under a revised license that qualifies as Open Source. You can read the license if you'd like. Thanks to Rick.

TrollTech has announced that they will now be distributing their Qt toolkit under a revised license that qualifies as Open Source. You can read the license if you'd like. Thanks to Rick.

The FreeBSD project has announced efforts to port Mozilla to FreeBSD. A CVS repository, a mailing list, as well as other "centralized resources" will be made available.
An article at news.com talks about Troll's recent work on QtScape. Good press for all.

Tim Newsome wrote in to tell us that Troll has ported mozilla to work with Qt. Sure didn't take long... check it out over at TrollTech.