Qt2.0 (available now) is Free Software according to Richard Stallman, and Open Source according to Bruce Perens. You only have to buy a proprietary license if you intend to use it for proprietary applications.
But I still wonder why a "boring" license is a concern? Is Qt too boring? I mean, people used to pull out the heavy artillery everytime it was mentioned here:-)
It sounds like you've already decided on GTK+. So why are you asking the question?
I was going to mention Qt since I find it to be a very clean interface, but you've already decided. But I find it curious: you first say that license doesn't matter, then you blast Qt for having a "boring" license. What gives?
p.s. If you're worried about the so-called new "keywords" in Qt, take a much closer look at them. They aren't keywords.
I don't know who these other turkeys are ragging on you, but they don't count. They're just pissed because you won't fit their tiny mold.
And as for the charges of your being impatient and full of yourself, well, duh! I bet you're lazy too! I expect nothing less. It's perl after all. Keep up the good work!
...okay now, where was I? Oh yeah, please go read the Debian social contract. Then go read the GPL. Then go read the collected essays of Richard Stallman. Then go look up the interviews of Bob Young. If after this, you still feel that Mandrake is stealing Redhat, then stop bogarting that doobie and pass it around.
I was in the market for a new printer. Running OS/2 at the time, I wanted to make sure that drivers were available. I called up Hewlett Packard, and asked for technical support (knowing I wouldn't get help from sales).
Me: I trying to find out if there are HP692c drivers available for OS/2 Warp 4.
Tech support: I'm sorry sir, but our inkjet printers won't work on the Mac.
(I eventually found the OS/2 drivers, and Mac drivers along the way)
1) compiled with pentium optimization. On my AMD K6, I see a HUGE improvement because of this. 2) better i18n support 3) updated packages 4) different kernel, initscripts, etc. 5) different package selections, both in the basic "disk one", and also in the "contrib" and "commercial" disks. 6) bero utilities 7) cheaper price with a longer support period
SCO Unix is going to be dead pretty soon, and it had nothing to do with SCO's previous attitude. What has happened is that Linux made operating systems a commodity. When Linux starts doing things that the big Unices do (real soon now), then Solaris, HPUX, etc., will be dying off also.
I would suspect that in five or ten years, no is going to care what OS you use. Mix and match Linux/Hurd/etc with GNU/BSD/Etc with Gnome/KDE/UDE/etc as you see fit. It won't matter anymore. It will be like PC's today. It really doesn't matter much if you use Intel/AMD/Cyrix with Asus/FIC/etc MB's or with Seagate/WD/etc drives.
SCO can certainly ride this OS shattering storm out. They have the expertise to do it. All they need is to join the community and make an SCO/Linux distribution. It would be a tempting distro, after all they've been in the i386/Unix business longer than anyone. Keep supporting SCO/Unix in your existing customer base, but realize that it will fade away.
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" does not fit the open source community either.
"You know about block devices, therefore you are assigned to Hurd development. However, you don't need a GUI, so you don't get Gnome."
Turn it on it's head, and you get a closer representation. "From each according to his needs, to each according to his abilities". Think about it. I've got an "itch" so I create something and contribute it to the community. The greater my abilities are, the more I get out of the community. For example, the more I know about the command line, bash, vi, etc., the more I get out of Unix/Linux/BSD.
I couldn't agree more. I couched it in US terms though, since that's my social context. But that's okay, I need a score card to tell the European parties apart, and I'll never understand Israeli politics:-)
If you have to split the world into two, then libertarians would have to fall on the side of conservatism (less government). However, libertarians are very rarely accused of promoting limits.
Just to start an argument, I'd say it's the liberals who are all in favor of limits. Who advocates warning labels for rap music. Who proposed the clipper chip and v-chip? Which adminstration militarily intervened the most into foreign affairs? In a more general note, which side wants to limits guns, politically incorrect speech, ban tobacco, etc?
In fact, what was there that Reagan wanted to limit, that liberals don't also want to limit? Pornography? Talk to the N.O.W. about that. Drugs? Talk to Clinton about that. Speech? Talk to Tipper Gore about that.
To sum it up, the left/right and liberal/conservative polarities don't exist. Politics is much more complicated than a one dimensional spectrum, and as intelligent geeks, we ought to recognize that.
Yes, I'm a Jesus Freak. I've thought about why geeks are typically irreligious. I think it has to do with the fact that geeks are rarely social creatures, and church is a very social atmosphere. Of course, this has very little to do with actual faith or belief, but rather with church attendance. Most geeks and hackers operate in a digital realm of absolutes and accuracy, and they easily see through the facade of the modern pharisees.
You still need to source code for bug fixing. Replicating source code by way of reverse engineering is EXTREME tedium.
Some things you can reverse engineer with relative ease, like API's, resource DLL's, file formats, etc. But generating human-readable source code from a non-trivial application isn't worth the effort it takes.
The person who's bitching the loudest about people using Free Software fell for this one hook line and sinker! I guess all that self-righteousness about Debian blinded you to any form of humor.
It's called satire. Look it up in the dictionary. If you're pissed at Redhat for making money, why don't you point the blame at the GPL! After all, it's the GPL that allows people to sell GPL'd software. It's the GPL that opens up sourcecode so that other, less-enlightened, folks can use it.
If I didn't know better, I'd say you're pissed at Free Software being Free! IF YOU DON'T WANT PEOPLE USING YOUR CODE, DON'T MAKE IT FREE!!!
My distro didn't win! Obviously it was a setup. Janet Reno should look into this!
Give me a break! Are you expecting me to believe that Mandrake OUTSPENT SuSE and Redhat in bribes? Have you thought about returning your Mandrake package, or are you more interested in pouting? Did you even try out the installation support you paid for? Grow up and learn to spell.
(I didn't know that there was a Netscape for KDE. When was that announced?)
I attended their demo at LWCE, and they mentioned something that I didn't get to discuss with any Corel people
They said that they trimmed the debian packages down to what is essential and desirable. For example, you won't have a choice of jed/joe/vi/vim/emacs/xemacs, you get vi. The reasoning behind this was that new users won't know what these packages are anyway, and don't have the time to read through 1800 detailed package descriptions. The Corel/KDE menu represents all of the GUI applications installed.
This could be either a Good Thing, or a Bad Thing. This would be Good if I still have access to all those other packages. In that case, it would be no different than chooses "basic installation" with any other distro. But if there are no other packages, no second contrib CD, etc., then this is a Bad Thing.
I strongly suspect that the Corel File Manager (CFM) is direct and close decendant of KFM. I actually used it at LWCE and it acts just like KFM. Replace the silly icons with the normal KDE icons, slide that splitter over to the left, and you've got KFM. No, I don't think it's a brand new file manager.
If I can get rid of those LARGE button bar icons, I'd be very happy. But as it is now, it looks too much like *gasp* Explorer. But if they go the traditional KDE route and keep the system button bar icons as distinct xpm's, then I can change them (along with my theme), so that no one would ever mistake it for IE.
As a Software QA engineer, I can say that design documents are critical. How am I to know that the software is working correctly if I don't know how it's supposed to work? For those that think this is trivial, think back to last weeks "life or death software" article.
Developers don't like doing design documents. I don't blame them for not wanting to write the specs until after they're coded in. But it's important. They keep everyone on the same page, and prevent developers from putting in the app what they think should be in it.
Design documents allow more than one person to code an application at the same time. The smaller the project, the less "formal" the docs need to be, but they need to be there. Even if the app is just a simple text editor, if one developer is thinking "vi", and another "wordpad", you're going to have problems.
A story: Two days after a major application is released, customers are screaming that the autosave feature is overwriting unrelated files. Someone traces the cause down to a combination of autosave and the autospell. PHB calls the tester into his office and demands to know why the bug wasn't found previously. Tester explains that the autospell was never in the specs, and had no idea it existed, and so could not test it. The PHB, the idiot that he is, fires the tester, and gives a bonus to the developer that wrote the autospell.
Slashdot Mirror
Qt2.0 (available now) is Free Software according to Richard Stallman, and Open Source according to Bruce Perens. You only have to buy a proprietary license if you intend to use it for proprietary applications.
Sorry, I misread it.
:-)
But I still wonder why a "boring" license is a concern? Is Qt too boring? I mean, people used to pull out the heavy artillery everytime it was mentioned here
It sounds like you've already decided on GTK+. So why are you asking the question?
I was going to mention Qt since I find it to be a very clean interface, but you've already decided. But I find it curious: you first say that license doesn't matter, then you blast Qt for having a "boring" license. What gives?
p.s. If you're worried about the so-called new "keywords" in Qt, take a much closer look at them. They aren't keywords.
I don't know who these other turkeys are ragging on you, but they don't count. They're just pissed because you won't fit their tiny mold.
And as for the charges of your being impatient and full of yourself, well, duh! I bet you're lazy too! I expect nothing less. It's perl after all. Keep up the good work!
Pardon me while I scream...
AAARRRRRGH!!!!
...okay now, where was I? Oh yeah, please go read the Debian social contract. Then go read the GPL. Then go read the collected essays of Richard Stallman. Then go look up the interviews of Bob Young. If after this, you still feel that Mandrake is stealing Redhat, then stop bogarting that doobie and pass it around.
I was in the market for a new printer. Running OS/2 at the time, I wanted to make sure that drivers were available. I called up Hewlett Packard, and asked for technical support (knowing I wouldn't get help from sales).
Me: I trying to find out if there are HP692c drivers available for OS/2 Warp 4.
Tech support: I'm sorry sir, but our inkjet printers won't work on the Mac.
(I eventually found the OS/2 drivers, and Mac drivers along the way)
unIX
irIX
aIX
hpUX (okay, so it doesn't work...)
Actually, there was nothing to fix. It was a "feature". I didn't like it, so I turned it off. Simple.
It's more than just an new logo. Get real!
1) compiled with pentium optimization. On my AMD K6, I see a HUGE improvement because of this.
2) better i18n support
3) updated packages
4) different kernel, initscripts, etc.
5) different package selections, both in the basic "disk one", and also in the "contrib" and "commercial" disks.
6) bero utilities
7) cheaper price with a longer support period
SCO Unix is going to be dead pretty soon, and it had nothing to do with SCO's previous attitude. What has happened is that Linux made operating systems a commodity. When Linux starts doing things that the big Unices do (real soon now), then Solaris, HPUX, etc., will be dying off also.
I would suspect that in five or ten years, no is going to care what OS you use. Mix and match Linux/Hurd/etc with GNU/BSD/Etc with Gnome/KDE/UDE/etc as you see fit. It won't matter anymore. It will be like PC's today. It really doesn't matter much if you use Intel/AMD/Cyrix with Asus/FIC/etc MB's or with Seagate/WD/etc drives.
SCO can certainly ride this OS shattering storm out. They have the expertise to do it. All they need is to join the community and make an SCO/Linux distribution. It would be a tempting distro, after all they've been in the i386/Unix business longer than anyone. Keep supporting SCO/Unix in your existing customer base, but realize that it will fade away.
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" does not fit the open source community either.
"You know about block devices, therefore you are assigned to Hurd development. However, you don't need a GUI, so you don't get Gnome."
Turn it on it's head, and you get a closer representation. "From each according to his needs, to each according to his abilities". Think about it. I've got an "itch" so I create something and contribute it to the community. The greater my abilities are, the more I get out of the community. For example, the more I know about the command line, bash, vi, etc., the more I get out of Unix/Linux/BSD.
I couldn't agree more. I couched it in US terms though, since that's my social context. But that's okay, I need a score card to tell the European parties apart, and I'll never understand Israeli politics :-)
Not at all! Think of a graph with economic freedom along the left and personal freedom along the bottom. You end up with:
:-)
Conservative Libertarian
Centrist
Authortarian Liberal
Of course, this model is as inaccurate as the traditional left/right one
...their strange, weird and quirky sense of humor.
For example:
Richard M. Stallman, Linus Torvalds, and Donald E. Knuth engage in a discussion on who was the best programmer.
Stallman: "God told me I have programmed the best editor in the world!"
Torvalds: "Well, God told *me* that I have programmed the best kernel in the world!"
Knuth: "Wait, wait - I never said that."
If you have to split the world into two, then libertarians would have to fall on the side of conservatism (less government). However, libertarians are very rarely accused of promoting limits.
Just to start an argument, I'd say it's the liberals who are all in favor of limits. Who advocates warning labels for rap music. Who proposed the clipper chip and v-chip? Which adminstration militarily intervened the most into foreign affairs? In a more general note, which side wants to limits guns, politically incorrect speech, ban tobacco, etc?
In fact, what was there that Reagan wanted to limit, that liberals don't also want to limit? Pornography? Talk to the N.O.W. about that. Drugs? Talk to Clinton about that. Speech? Talk to Tipper Gore about that.
To sum it up, the left/right and liberal/conservative polarities don't exist. Politics is much more complicated than a one dimensional spectrum, and as intelligent geeks, we ought to recognize that.
Yes, I'm a Jesus Freak. I've thought about why geeks are typically irreligious. I think it has to do with the fact that geeks are rarely social creatures, and church is a very social atmosphere. Of course, this has very little to do with actual faith or belief, but rather with church attendance. Most geeks and hackers operate in a digital realm of absolutes and accuracy, and they easily see through the facade of the modern pharisees.
You still need to source code for bug fixing. Replicating source code by way of reverse engineering is EXTREME tedium.
Some things you can reverse engineer with relative ease, like API's, resource DLL's, file formats, etc. But generating human-readable source code from a non-trivial application isn't worth the effort it takes.
Ha!!
The person who's bitching the loudest about people using Free Software fell for this one hook line and sinker! I guess all that self-righteousness about Debian blinded you to any form of humor.
It's called satire. Look it up in the dictionary. If you're pissed at Redhat for making money, why don't you point the blame at the GPL! After all, it's the GPL that allows people to sell GPL'd software. It's the GPL that opens up sourcecode so that other, less-enlightened, folks can use it.
If I didn't know better, I'd say you're pissed at Free Software being Free! IF YOU DON'T WANT PEOPLE USING YOUR CODE, DON'T MAKE IT FREE!!!
Wipe that egg off your face. It looks silly.
My distro didn't win! Obviously it was a setup. Janet Reno should look into this!
Give me a break! Are you expecting me to believe that Mandrake OUTSPENT SuSE and Redhat in bribes? Have you thought about returning your Mandrake package, or are you more interested in pouting? Did you even try out the installation support you paid for? Grow up and learn to spell.
(I didn't know that there was a Netscape for KDE. When was that announced?)
I attended their demo at LWCE, and they mentioned something that I didn't get to discuss with any Corel people
They said that they trimmed the debian packages down to what is essential and desirable. For example, you won't have a choice of jed/joe/vi/vim/emacs/xemacs, you get vi. The reasoning behind this was that new users won't know what these packages are anyway, and don't have the time to read through 1800 detailed package descriptions. The Corel/KDE menu represents all of the GUI applications installed.
This could be either a Good Thing, or a Bad Thing. This would be Good if I still have access to all those other packages. In that case, it would be no different than chooses "basic installation" with any other distro. But if there are no other packages, no second contrib CD, etc., then this is a Bad Thing.
I strongly suspect that the Corel File Manager (CFM) is direct and close decendant of KFM. I actually used it at LWCE and it acts just like KFM. Replace the silly icons with the normal KDE icons, slide that splitter over to the left, and you've got KFM. No, I don't think it's a brand new file manager.
If I can get rid of those LARGE button bar icons, I'd be very happy. But as it is now, it looks too much like *gasp* Explorer. But if they go the traditional KDE route and keep the system button bar icons as distinct xpm's, then I can change them (along with my theme), so that no one would ever mistake it for IE.
As a Software QA engineer, I can say that design documents are critical. How am I to know that the software is working correctly if I don't know how it's supposed to work? For those that think this is trivial, think back to last weeks "life or death software" article.
Developers don't like doing design documents. I don't blame them for not wanting to write the specs until after they're coded in. But it's important. They keep everyone on the same page, and prevent developers from putting in the app what they think should be in it.
Design documents allow more than one person to code an application at the same time. The smaller the project, the less "formal" the docs need to be, but they need to be there. Even if the app is just a simple text editor, if one developer is thinking "vi", and another "wordpad", you're going to have problems.
A story: Two days after a major application is released, customers are screaming that the autosave feature is overwriting unrelated files. Someone traces the cause down to a combination of autosave and the autospell. PHB calls the tester into his office and demands to know why the bug wasn't found previously. Tester explains that the autospell was never in the specs, and had no idea it existed, and so could not test it. The PHB, the idiot that he is, fires the tester, and gives a bonus to the developer that wrote the autospell.
Redhat is not 100% GPL. Hell, it's not even 100% opensource, let alone free.
My copy of Redhat 6.0 from Cheapbytes contains Netscape Communicator (non-free), Qt (non-GPL) and Xv (shareware), amongst others.
Here, let me burst your bubble...
Linux does not have any core principles, focus or design. It's just an itch getting scratched.
Pop!
"...the only way to be fully accepted into the Linux community is to contribute (open source software) to the community."
All distros are equal, but some distros are more equal than others.