Nokia Engineers on KHTML

Rich writes "KDE could soon be making its way into your mobile phone. At aKademy in August David Carson and Deepika Chauhan from Nokia presented the work they've done in integrating KDE components into the latest version of the company's mobile phone software. Philip Rodrigues discusses this work with them on dot.kde.org."

Comments

KHTML?

[MaestroSartori]

I don't know for sure, but isn't WebCore a different thing to KHTML? I think it's based on KHTML, but is it not a separate project?

Re:Cool... BUT (there's always a BUT)

[WillerZ]

FFS RTFA, this is about WebCore (a KHTML-derived HTML rendering engine) being used in the Nokia web browser. They aren't porting all of KDE.

Another feature to run down the battery...

[verbnoun]

Back when I had my first phone, a Nokia 3210, it could go for almost a week without charging. Now, I have a phone with all the features it lasts little more than a day. Personally, if I want to use KHTML while I'm travelling around I'd rather take a laptop and have a phone that lasts a reasonable amount of time.

Re:Another feature to run down the battery...

[10Ghz]

I have Nokia 9300 Communicator. It has a GPRS-connection on all the time, so new emails are pushed to it instantly. I also make several phone-calls every day and use the PDA-functionality extensively. And the battery lasts for several days before needing a recharge.

So I call bullshit on your comment.

Re:Warning

[imsabbel]

iDont.

Seriously. When new to linux, and browsing through the huge garbage pile that is the "available list" of the package manager, finding something with the destinctinve "K" is really helpful, because they usually work and at least partly follow the same usability conventions.

Case in point: i couldnt even EXIT that damn vi before reading 5 minutes into the damn man file without kill-9ing the PID, but luckily a "Kedit" in the corresponding cathegory was available, completely usable

Re:Why do all this free work for ONE company?

[Bogtha]

The way the Qt/KDE relationship is structured, all this work porting KDE components to Troll Tech's platforms adds value primarily to the product from one company: Troll Tech.

Um, what? Porting KDE components to TrollTech's platforms? KDE has always been based on TrollTech's Qt toolkit.

Furthermore, it clearly adds value to KDE; the quality of the Qt toolkit really shows. Compare the quality of KHTML and Gecko sometime. KHTML's faster, uses less resources, and implements the W3C specifications better (it passes the Acid2 test, implements things like DOM2 mutation events, etc, some of which are a *long* way off in Gecko - Acid2 fixes aren't even planned yet). And yet the KHTML developers have accomplished this with a fraction of the resources available to Mozilla.org. Much the same comparisons can be made between KOffice and OpenOffice.

Assume Troll Tech's products are as good as people working with them say they are and that they should take over the world. What would we end up with? A single company monopolizing the commercial GUI development space, plus lots of people contributing free labor. How is that different from what we get with Microsoft?

The difference is that Qt is GPLed, so all the proprietary license fees would be paying for development of Free Software, and would directly benefit Free Software like KDE.

As far as I'm concerned, dual licenses are bad because they inhibit competition.

You can fork Qt whenever you want.

All contributors to an open source project should work on equal footing.

All contributors to Qt have all the freedoms granted by the GPL.

Re:Why do all this free work for ONE company?

[49152]

Oh no, not again!

This horse has been beaten to death several times before, either you are trolling or simply very ignorant.

QT is GPL'd you are free to fork at any time, if you dont believe me go read the f***ng license yourself.

Re:Why do all this free work for ONE company?

[10Ghz]

I don't get it. I really don't. A company releases their prodcut (a very good product in fact!) under the GPL. And when they do that, some people start to whine that "Don't do that! You are hurting the free software movement!". So releasing software as free sofware is a bad thing?

What is the problem here? TrollTech offers their product under the GPL. They also offer it under a proprietary license. They don't force anyone to use their toolkit, and you are free to fork the toolkit anytime you want to. So what is the problem here? Why is it bad to offer software under the GPL?

Assume Troll Tech's products are as good as people working with them say they are and that they should take over the world. What would we end up with? A single company monopolizing the commercial GUI development space, plus lots of people contributing free labor.

Qt is licensed under the GPL. I really fail to see how they could "monopolize" anything. or are you worried what would happen if Linux "monopolized" the OS-market? or if Red Hat "monopolized" Linux-market? Since the product (Qt, Linux or Red Hat) are GPL'ed, there will be no "monopolization" in the sense as would happen with Microsoft for example.

But people who do contribute free labor to Troll Tech should reflect on what they are doing and why they are doing it.

So I shouldn't offer any bug-reports to the kernel-folks, because that might make the product a bit better, and some company might earn some money through it?

Seriously, am I in the Twilight Zone or something? People are complaining when some company offerws kick-ass software under the GPL?

Re:Cool... BUT (there's always a BUT)

[MenTaLguY]

1. in most cases drawing still dominates, rather than IPC overhead

2. This is why the standard MIT SHM extension exists. When the client and server are on the same machine, the bitmap memory can be shared between client and server