If the companies listed by your parent switch to UserLinux, they will actually have to waste money producing their own UserLinux derivative with Qt support, in order to continue to use the proprietary software they currently have.
I suppose it will be easy to run a company-standard customization script to install whatever was not installed that is needed.
That is why the KDE proposal specifically includes GTK+ support;)
It has a vague promise, but I would like to *see* KDE running on GTK+. The choice has to be made now, and there is no GTK-KDE *now*.
Mostly it refers to Freedesktop and doesn't really promise that KDE will run on Qt.
Both the community *and* Trolltech benefit. We all benefit. And that is the point. Trolltech makes Free Software which the community benefits from. Get it?
The money will come from the corporations that are paying for the development of UL. It's fair to not expect the companies to pay the Trolltech tax whenever they want to develop some closed source stuff on the platform.
If I was a company that considered financing UL, I would heavily question the choice of Qt as the default toolkit.
You are reduced to an anti-TT rant which makes no sense. TT supports the community.
I'm emphatically not anti-TT. They have a great business model, nothing wrong with that. I just want to see UL succeed, and Gtk way is easier to sell to commercial companies. Many companies would cringe if they were told that developing for Linux is more expensive than developing for Windows. Especially if they are operating on low margins, which are becoming more commonplace.
If I was to start developing a closed source application (I could, if I lost my day job or whatever) Qt would not be an option for me. Only the big/medium size ones with steady income can afford it.
Secondly, what's the problem with paying for high quality software that saves you a lot of time and money in terms of productivity?
Stating the obvious: because it's cheaper?
For example, some poor tosser in eastern Muktananda earns $300 a month, and decides to implement a closed source application to run on UserLinux. You expect him to sell his house and shell out for Trolltech?
It's a different thing to voluntarily choose a commercial toolkit, and be forced to pick one because it is the only way to get the LAF right for the desktop platform.
Besides, shouldn't the community benefit from some form of recompense from proprietary developers using our Free systems? Yes, we should and with Qt, we do.
Community wouldn't benefit. Trolltech would.
I think it's simply better to use some of the money that the companies will save by Peren's choice of GTK and use it to improve GTK. This money will be well spent and the fruits will benefit the companies and the developer community as a whole, instead of paying for development of something they have to purchase again and again.
Choosing Qt will make the companies bitches of Trolltech for all eternity.
if you really disagree with their choice on which GUI to include, make your own distribution and include just KDE with it.
What's better, you can just apt-get kde on UserLinux.
Gnome will be the default, supported option. It's sensible to pick only one to "officially support", and let the hackers use the other to their heart's content.
Gnome is the better "supported" option because it doesn't require royalties for closed source development. This matters in countries where you can buy 3 developer months for single license of Qt (and for 3 developers, you need 3 licenses).
You don't see the irony of people bitching about someone charging them a fee to use their toolkit, when they intend to do exactly the same thing with the software they are writing?
No, I don't. Toolkit is a different thing from an application. I would never use a commercial TCP/IP stack, for example.
QT, unlike GTK, is not a community project. It (well, Trolltech) is a commercial entity, with all the associated attached strings. I believe that trying to bring Gnome and GTK up to par with KDE and QT will be worth it in the long run.
If you want to prove to the business world that there's money to be made writing GPL software, Qt is a great example, so why not thrust it in front of the corporate types?
Being a good example of a business model doesn't make an argument for choosing it as a foundation of a distro. It's Trolltech's business model, and a good one I admit (it's a great thing they abandoned their old Evil license), but why should UserLinux give Trolltech a free gift of larger userbase?
I tend to think that Trolltech could "let go" of their desktop toolkit, and rake in the cash from Embedded/Mobile stuff. That could send the popularity of Qt and KDE booming through the roof in corporate circles.
Especially for business apps, KDE seems like a more natural choice.
On the contrary, KDE is worse for the business apps. It's all about the license difference b/w GTK+ and QT. Choosing KDE would practically have forced the companies that want to ship closed source software to buy a expen$ive license for Qt (if they want to have the uniform "look", of course).
Personally, I use KDE. That's because I'm not a business, and I use what works (and KDE works better than Gnome ATM). But I wouldn't build my future on it.
I for one would like to see how they tweak the kernel to handle real-time tasks.
In smartphones, the real time part is typically running another OS, while the "smart" OS communicates w/ the other OS and delivers "value added functionality".
As cool as it is, these stories lost relevance when IBM put Linux on a wristwatch.
I guess you don't realize the complexity difference b/w a wristwatch and a Smartphone. Or the economic value. Linux in a wristwatch is a fun hack - Linux on a smartphone is a potentially disruptive technology.
People don't realize the reason why it's called the Java Desktop, but it has to do with using Linux as simply a set of extremely well written device drivers, and recognizing that the underlying OS is a commodity.
Astroturfing, are we? JDS is just a rethemed SUSE with Star Office, nothing that revolutionary.
Sun keeps telling us that OS is a commodity and not all that interesting. Meanwhile, they are clining to Solaris like their life depended on it.
It's true that OS (not just Kernel) is, and should be, a commodity and Linux (+ *BSD, yadda yadda) delivers on that idea. Other OSen don't.
Don't get me wrong, besides the astroturfing I would still have modded you +1 interesting, if I hadn't already posted in this article... It just seems you study Sun marketing material extensively, or you *write* the damn stuff:).
As soon as Linux scales well to 128+ CPUs with full binary compatibility (no recompile) and has hot swap CPU/MEMROY/Motherboard support.
Clients that require such features are a minimal market. Linux is better choice for 95% of the clients. Most clients would rather have a platform that has a future, not a past.
The implication they are trying to make is that Unix and its sysadmins are obsolete washed up fuddy-duddies, and they need to migrate to Windows now before they get laid off.
They are also targeting manager types with these ads. The ads imply that their Unix guy can be coerced to help with the Windows migration by providing SFU. Eventually, as the old Unix fart retires or understands to quit, the servers will be managed 100% in the one true Windows way.
If your company is indeed migrating to Windows, and you can't influence the company enough to switch to Linux instead, I would suggets finding a better job and letting the f*ckers "make it happen" themselves. Your company doesn't deserve your help!
Why do I have the feeling...
on
Effective XML
·
· Score: 0, Insightful
That the book won't mention the "s-exprs on drag" angle...
The principle is what matters, and you're blinded by mindless Linux advocacy.
So if I have a tiny project and a large project emerges with the same name, they should change the name because I was there first? I'm afraid the world doesn't work that way.
Microsoft decides they want to release an OS called "GNU/Linux.
We are talking at different scale here. I bet a press release by MSFT would cause quite an uproar immediately, instead of few months down the road.
To me, it seems obvious that a bigger project gets to override an unknown project with the same name, especially if it is accidental (as this happens to be). I have several open source projects - if red hat, msft or whatever chose to release something with the same name, I would be amused, but wouldn't make much noise.
Frankly, I care more about technology than names, and as the university project is completely unknown to me, I don't really care about their name problems. How much money are they going to lose because there is a Linux distro with the same name, as opposed to engaging in a lawsuit? Why didn't they care about fedora-the-project that is probably something like one year old?
Do I have the right to simply take it, make it mine and simply say: "Hey I'm bigger so it's mine"?
Well, I wouldn't obviously sue you are make lots of noise about it. I could change my handle (probably to some permutation of Bruce Perens) and go on with my life. More probably I would no nothing, I don't care enough. The university guys should have started complaining at the point when the fedora project (the original one, not the new red hat project) was found. They should have been all over the Fedora mailing lists.
There are just too much big things like the SCO case, SW patents and whatnot to waste energy to petty things like this.
Did Darl McBride take over Red Hat when we weren't looking?
What's your problem with this case, anyway? To me it seems that the university is just begging more attention to their project by this publicity stunt. The lesser of the two projects could just bite the bullet and consider changing the name, or stick with the name and see what happens. It's software darwinism in action.
Why do people always have to drag the court into these matters? It's just going to result in lots of pissed off people and wasted money.
Slashdot Mirror
UserLinux will not support Qt. At all.
One word: apt-get. It's still debian.
If the companies listed by your parent switch to UserLinux, they will actually have to waste money producing their own UserLinux derivative with Qt support, in order to continue to use the proprietary software they currently have.
I suppose it will be easy to run a company-standard customization script to install whatever was not installed that is needed.
That is why the KDE proposal specifically includes GTK+ support ;)
It has a vague promise, but I would like to *see* KDE running on GTK+. The choice has to be made now, and there is no GTK-KDE *now*.
Mostly it refers to Freedesktop and doesn't really promise that KDE will run on Qt.
Both the community *and* Trolltech benefit. We all benefit. And that is the point. Trolltech makes Free Software which the community benefits from. Get it?
The money will come from the corporations that are paying for the development of UL. It's fair to not expect the companies to pay the Trolltech tax whenever they want to develop some closed source stuff on the platform.
If I was a company that considered financing UL, I would heavily question the choice of Qt as the default toolkit.
You are reduced to an anti-TT rant which makes no sense. TT supports the community.
I'm emphatically not anti-TT. They have a great business model, nothing wrong with that. I just want to see UL succeed, and Gtk way is easier to sell to commercial companies. Many companies would cringe if they were told that developing for Linux is more expensive than developing for Windows. Especially if they are operating on low margins, which are becoming more commonplace.
If I was to start developing a closed source application (I could, if I lost my day job or whatever) Qt would not be an option for me. Only the big/medium size ones with steady income can afford it.
Secondly, what's the problem with paying for high quality software that saves you a lot of time and money in terms of productivity?
Stating the obvious: because it's cheaper?
For example, some poor tosser in eastern Muktananda earns $300 a month, and decides to implement a closed source application to run on UserLinux. You expect him to sell his house and shell out for Trolltech?
One thing about GTK+ is that it is not restricted to C++ as QT.
Neither is Qt. I've read that PyQt (Python bindings for Qt) is pretty nifty.
More reasons why the licensing argument is bogus
It's a different thing to voluntarily choose a commercial toolkit, and be forced to pick one because it is the only way to get the LAF right for the desktop platform.
Besides, shouldn't the community benefit from some form of recompense from proprietary developers using our Free systems? Yes, we should and with Qt, we do.
Community wouldn't benefit. Trolltech would.
I think it's simply better to use some of the money that the companies will save by Peren's choice of GTK and use it to improve GTK. This money will be well spent and the fruits will benefit the companies and the developer community as a whole, instead of paying for development of something they have to purchase again and again.
Choosing Qt will make the companies bitches of Trolltech for all eternity.
I sense another Holy War incoming over this.
So you are saying that a holy war between Gnome and KDE will be coming? Proponents of various desktops trolling and flaming each other on Slashdot?
We are truly living interesting times.
if you really disagree with their choice on which GUI to include, make your own distribution and include just KDE with it.
What's better, you can just apt-get kde on UserLinux.
Gnome will be the default, supported option. It's sensible to pick only one to "officially support", and let the hackers use the other to their heart's content.
Gnome is the better "supported" option because it doesn't require royalties for closed source development. This matters in countries where you can buy 3 developer months for single license of Qt (and for 3 developers, you need 3 licenses).
Never? The Microsoft Windows OS contains a "commercial TCP/IP stack"
And I don't have to pay MSFT for the privilege of creating a closed source program that uses it.
You don't see the irony of people bitching about someone charging them a fee to use their toolkit, when they intend to do exactly the same thing with the software they are writing?
No, I don't. Toolkit is a different thing from an application. I would never use a commercial TCP/IP stack, for example.
KDE is no less a community project than GNOME.
QT, unlike GTK, is not a community project. It (well, Trolltech) is a commercial entity, with all the associated attached strings. I believe that trying to bring Gnome and GTK up to par with KDE and QT will be worth it in the long run.
If you want to develop closed-source software, based on someone else's toolkit, you should have to pay for the privilege.
Why, exactly?
There is more than one way. Anyone that insists that there is only one way, and that is their way, is probably wrong.
And you think that Perl is succesfull that it proves the ideal of one way wrong?
Depends on how you measure success, I guess...
If you want to prove to the business world that there's money to be made writing GPL software, Qt is a great example, so why not thrust it in front of the corporate types?
Being a good example of a business model doesn't make an argument for choosing it as a foundation of a distro. It's Trolltech's business model, and a good one I admit (it's a great thing they abandoned their old Evil license), but why should UserLinux give Trolltech a free gift of larger userbase?
I tend to think that Trolltech could "let go" of their desktop toolkit, and rake in the cash from Embedded/Mobile stuff. That could send the popularity of Qt and KDE booming through the roof in corporate circles.
Free-as-in-beer doesn't impress big business. I don't think it's as critical an issue as you make out.
Yes it is. It may not matter for 1-4 licenses, but free scales a lot better for hundreds of licenses.
Plus, there is no license management. With free beer, there is no hassle.
Especially for business apps, KDE seems like a more natural choice.
On the contrary, KDE is worse for the business apps. It's all about the license difference b/w GTK+ and QT. Choosing KDE would practically have forced the companies that want to ship closed source software to buy a expen$ive license for Qt (if they want to have the uniform "look", of course).
Personally, I use KDE. That's because I'm not a business, and I use what works (and KDE works better than Gnome ATM). But I wouldn't build my future on it.
I for one would like to see how they tweak the kernel to handle real-time tasks.
In smartphones, the real time part is typically running another OS, while the "smart" OS communicates w/ the other OS and delivers "value added functionality".
As cool as it is, these stories lost relevance when IBM put Linux on a wristwatch.
I guess you don't realize the complexity difference b/w a wristwatch and a Smartphone. Or the economic value. Linux in a wristwatch is a fun hack - Linux on a smartphone is a potentially disruptive technology.
People don't realize the reason why it's called the Java Desktop, but it has to do with using Linux as simply a set of extremely well written device drivers, and recognizing that the underlying OS is a commodity.
:).
Astroturfing, are we? JDS is just a rethemed SUSE with Star Office, nothing that revolutionary.
Sun keeps telling us that OS is a commodity and not all that interesting. Meanwhile, they are clining to Solaris like their life depended on it.
It's true that OS (not just Kernel) is, and should be, a commodity and Linux (+ *BSD, yadda yadda) delivers on that idea. Other OSen don't.
Don't get me wrong, besides the astroturfing I would still have modded you +1 interesting, if I hadn't already posted in this article... It just seems you study Sun marketing material extensively, or you *write* the damn stuff
As soon as Linux scales well to 128+ CPUs with full binary compatibility (no recompile) and has hot swap CPU/MEMROY/Motherboard support.
Clients that require such features are a minimal market. Linux is better choice for 95% of the clients. Most clients would rather have a platform that has a future, not a past.
The implication they are trying to make is that Unix and its sysadmins are obsolete washed up fuddy-duddies, and they need to migrate to Windows now before they get laid off.
They are also targeting manager types with these ads. The ads imply that their Unix guy can be coerced to help with the Windows migration by providing SFU. Eventually, as the old Unix fart retires or understands to quit, the servers will be managed 100% in the one true Windows way.
If your company is indeed migrating to Windows, and you can't influence the company enough to switch to Linux instead, I would suggets finding a better job and letting the f*ckers "make it happen" themselves. Your company doesn't deserve your help!
That the book won't mention the "s-exprs on drag" angle...
The principle is what matters, and you're blinded by mindless Linux advocacy.
So if I have a tiny project and a large project emerges with the same name, they should change the name because I was there first? I'm afraid the world doesn't work that way.
Microsoft decides they want to release an OS called "GNU/Linux.
We are talking at different scale here. I bet a press release by MSFT would cause quite an uproar immediately, instead of few months down the road.
To me, it seems obvious that a bigger project gets to override an unknown project with the same name, especially if it is accidental (as this happens to be). I have several open source projects - if red hat, msft or whatever chose to release something with the same name, I would be amused, but wouldn't make much noise.
Frankly, I care more about technology than names, and as the university project is completely unknown to me, I don't really care about their name problems. How much money are they going to lose because there is a Linux distro with the same name, as opposed to engaging in a lawsuit? Why didn't they care about fedora-the-project that is probably something like one year old?
Do I have the right to simply take it, make it mine and simply say: "Hey I'm bigger so it's mine"?
Well, I wouldn't obviously sue you are make lots of noise about it. I could change my handle (probably to some permutation of Bruce Perens) and go on with my life. More probably I would no nothing, I don't care enough. The university guys should have started complaining at the point when the fedora project (the original one, not the new red hat project) was found. They should have been all over the Fedora mailing lists.
There are just too much big things like the SCO case, SW patents and whatnot to waste energy to petty things like this.
Did Darl McBride take over Red Hat when we weren't looking?
What's your problem with this case, anyway? To me it seems that the university is just begging more attention to their project by this publicity stunt. The lesser of the two projects could just bite the bullet and consider changing the name, or stick with the name and see what happens. It's software darwinism in action.
Why do people always have to drag the court into these matters? It's just going to result in lots of pissed off people and wasted money.