Slashdot Mirror
Novell Desktop To Standardize On Qt [updated]
Balinares writes "NewsForge reports that Novell has settled for Qt as its Linux desktop development environment, casting more light on their strategy to unify KDE and GNOME. This ought to be interesting. The prospect of using Mono to code against Qt makes me drool in advance. Maybe programming will suck no longer!" Update: 03/30 00:01 GMT by T : Sounds like that story doesn't quite hold water; Nat Friedman writes in this Slashdot comment that "We have not decided that we are standardizing on Qt for the desktop. ... We support development with a variety of toolkits, and our internal development is done using the right tool for the right problem. This includes Qt, Gtk, VCL, XUL and others, depending on the application."
Not anymore, most of them have been resolved some time ago.
Besides, whats wrong with software you have to pay for?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
This does make a lot of sense, actually. And it might actually be early enough in the game for it to work.
.NET API's. .NET might, in fact, actually be the fastest route there (aside from Java, which I think people ought to be using for this purpose, but let's set that aside for a moment). Perhaps if, boosted by a Novell push, developers begin writing and publishing .NET code that uses Qt libraries, there will be that many more cross-platform desktop apps available that won't be bound to Windows.Forms, Avalon, or whatever other Windows-bound API's Microsoft wants everyone to use.
.NET is, on its face, a good design, but that we have to worry about Microsoft using it as a cudgel to beat back its competition.
Right now, there is still the opportunity to attract developers to cross-platform
It would be a double-bonus if Novell could make Mono a unified framework for writing apps that can be backended by KDE, GNOME, or Microsoft Windows without a rewrite. Let's see what happens. What's really a shame is that
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
Hmm. I hope you mean free as in speech not as in beer because otherwise that's not much of an argument.
The point of "free" software is that it is open for perusal, poking, sharing, etc. not that it's gratis so you don't have to pay for it. Granted because of the first the gratis part is often the case but the mentality that free speech software MUST mean free beer software is just wrong.
Sure information wants to be free, but how much are you willing to pay for the packaging?
Hey, if programming were easy, people would do it for free.
I don't see why this is funny. It is clear that if programming were easy then people would do it for free (like everything else that is easy). On the other hand it dosen't mean that because people program for free, that programming is easy (it's not!). That's why we should all celebrate all those programmers that program for free and share their work with the rest of the world!.
keeping kde and gnome separate for a little while longer, or possibly forever, might be a good plan. There's one catch though, they need to be completely interoperable. I want to be able to install the same program on both desktops and have it work seamlessly. I also want an icon put on the desktop or the taskbar menus. Is this possible? I don't have the expertise but I'm sure it can be done if these programs are on top of a standard api.
Why do I think this is a good idea? Keeping them separate but equal promotes competition between them. It makes them work harder to fix those little glitches that annoy users. KDE is looking kind of like windows xp, and gnome mac os X. It'd be nice if they took on more of an original look, but hey rome wasn't built in a day. I think that having the choice between both desktops knowing that most applications will work the same without needing a hundred different rpms for each thing is what's needed. I also think that libraries need to be consolidated. Basically I guess I'm saying this: the ease of installing programs on windows, but the ability to run them on a mac. Sound difficult? eh, look how far things have come.
It should be possible to make a run anywhere application on linux that will run on windows-- for the most part. Of course, details like file path formats are different between the platforms, so in certain cases a little mojo might be needed to work. Actually, it is mostly a case of 'best practices' and assuming nothing about the user's configuration (i.e. don't guess whether they have windows installed on C:\, find out. Don't guess that their home directory is /home/blah, use the objects given to you and find out).
As far as the UI libs go, a lot of the time, they are going to have bindings into native code-- but that is something the libraries handle for you. So assuming your qt library or whatever has linux and windows support, it should work on both platform. Obviously, if a coder screws up one side or the other, there will be issues, but that can be said of any kind of multiplatform development-- or any development at all.
====
Crudely Drawn Games
Oh, pity the poor proprietary software company! All they ask is that someone give them a first-class GUI toolkit at no cost, and with no strings attached! Is that so much to ask?
Please. Cry me a river. Trolltech spent a huge investment on making Qt the best cross-platform GUI toolkit available anywhere. I think they're decision to provide a GPL'd version was an incredibly noble thing for them to do (althogh in truth, they do get a lot out of it in return, especially through their relationship with KDE). My hat is off to Trolltech.
Do you not see the hypocrisy in demanding that one software company (TT) must give away its product for free so that other companies can profit from the work? How does that make any kind of sense?
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
Wrong. http://dot.kde.org/1073668213/
How can I say that? Well let's see, there are many boxed versions of Redhat & Suse that have been sold and I don't think anyone was ripped off.
While it is probably impossible for Redhat not to create a free as in beer version of their free as in speech software, the fact that it can and is paid for is very telling.
The main advantage of Open Source to most people is absolutely NOT the free binary whether they know it or not. It is not a "few geeks such as yourself" there is a very large world of geeks out here that value the source to their programs for many reasons other than that it may be free as in beer as well.
If in fact you value the monitary freeness of your software over the freedom of the source than I would argue that your not a geek at all but just someone who wants to ride a gravy train.
Furthermore the dichotomy you used between KDE & gnome is false because both are GPL'd. Would you rather pay for an Open Source KDE or get a closed source Windows for free? If you choose the Windows option than you definitely don't understand freedom and your no geek I want to hang out with.
The fact is that people have to stop with this idea that "free" in the GPL'd way means "free beer". Free software is a costly thing,I have spent untold hours of my valuable time helping to code free software, but that's fine I don't expect payment for that work because I was paid in kind by other coders. But users who just take and never give back must understand exactly what they are doing. I can't force anyone to pay for software they can get for "free" but your mentality that software MUST be free as in beer is totally antithema to the actual freedom that is espoused by free(dom) software.
Freedom software is about having the source, never looking over your shoulder for the thought police, adding to something and feeling you've contributed, learning, sharing. "Free beer" software is about being a leech!
Sure information wants to be free, but how much are you willing to pay for the packaging?
Use GNOME/Gtk, because you can USE Gtk as much as you want for COMMERCIAL development without paying anything.
Don't use KDE/Qt, because you can only develop FREE software using it, otherwise it costs money.
So.. NOW KDE/Qt is the champion of free software, whereas GNOME/Gtk is for the COMMERCIAL (and apparently not so evil after all) PROPRIETARY closed source solutions.
You make me laugh!
If GNOME/Gtk is REALLY a friend, let's see them place everything under GPL (for true software protection) rather than the LGPL.
What's the big deal about support Qt is you use the toolkit? Yep.. it's commercial...and if you use it for commercial development, it costs money... so?? Is someone suggesting their software business plan is only to sell like 10 copies of their software, so they can't afford to by a real development license?? Just seems weird.
I was going to moderate, but this is driving me insane. There are just too many posts like this. How is $1000 "locking out" single developers who intend to sell closed-source licenses? Even for sole proprietorships $1K is nothing special. Besides, you are talking about selling closed-source software, which by definition requires other people to pay you money per license, but somehow you think TrollTech is a fiend for wanting to do the same thing. If you want to be open, TrollTech is right there with you.
Our intelligent designer has never created an animal that we couldn't improve by strapping a bomb to it.
You're not a coder are you? none of your examples are in the same league as Qt, in either speed of developpement, ease of use, documentation or compleatness.
Ask 8 slackers a question, get 10 awnsers (a citation, but I can't remember from who)
I'm perennially amazed that the GNOME zealots, who started out from the GNU "all software must be free" zealot camp, now argue that Qt is bad because it doesn't allow proprietary applications. (Actually, it does, if you buy a licence from Qt. Unlike, say, GNU's readline library, which was deliberately GPL'd and not LGPL'd by Stallman, who will not issue you a commercial licence.)
In fact, RMS even wrote an article on why you shouldn't use the LGPL for your next library. Without the backing RMS gave GNOME in its early days, when it was an unusable piece of crap and KDE had already hit a high-quality 1.0, it would never have got off the ground. (Remember GNOME 1.0? *shudder*) And yet the selling point now is that GNOME is more suitable to proprietary apps? I just can't figure out where all this is coming from.
If anything, Qt is a shining success story on how to make money with GPL'd software using a dual-licensing strategy. Far from continuing to vilify Troll Tech, the GNU/GNOME zealots ought to trumpet this story as a way to encourage more proprietary software companies to play nice with the linux world. (Peter Deutsch did the dual-licence thing long back with ghostscript, but he only released year-old versions of ghostscript under the GPL, and that's still the practice. Troll Tech releases current versions of Qt under GPL as well as their commercial licence.)
Yes, but Gtk+ doesn't restrict you to C, whereas Qt is almost entirely C++ (except for some scripting language bindings, like Ruby, Perl, and Python).
I despise C++. Hate it. It is an abomination both to C, and to OO programming. The syntax extensions to C are complex, as is the OO model. The only thing I think C++ did right is the templating system.
I prefer Objective C, which takes a minimalist approach, and the late dynamic binding makes templating irrelevent. It's a much cleeaner language.
So, the issue comes down to choice. I know a lot of people prefer C++ to Objective C. You can't account for taste-- it seems more people prefer Budweiser to any other beer, and McDonald's to any other food source, and MS-Windows to any other desktop OS. But the point is, there is choice. I know I don't want to declare a single standard language for all programmers to use, and I distrust anyone who does.
If they standardize on any one toolkit, we are screwed as developers. Instead, they should concentrate on standardizing protocols. And, from a comment Nat Friedman made somewhere along the line in this topic, that's exactly what Novell is doing.
Anyway, just my two bits.
- Tony
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.