I think the first responder answerd your question beutifully. I am sure that the Trolls are aware that many people probably start projects with the free software and then buy the commercial license...at least as far as startup companies go. They probably consider these type of offenders as new business. However like the other poster said it is the concern that huge teams will develop at the expense of troll tech. TrollTech really is playing fair in this whole regard. I hope that the community doesn't smack them in the face.
ah yeah...exactly...if you had read the rest of my post
"Actually it is a little more complecated than this."
I am fully aware of the licensing schemas...as I have used both and had numerous dialogs with the people at trolltech about this.
Oh and no you will never develop an open source application that you will make millions of of by selling it. Others will simple get you code and set up shop. You will have to move to a service business. And no you can't do what troll tech does without buying a commercial license...I asked.
So quit with the pompous attitude. I was simple giving a simple answer to the original poster which is what he wanted.
That's it exactly. Basically their business model says here go play with out software/libraries for as long as you want...develop whatever you want. But if you sell the resulting code for profit then we also want some of the profit. Actually it is a little more complecated than this. You have to purchse the license before developing any of the code that will be used in a commercial product.
Nope. They are releasing two seperate versions of the code. One is under the GPL and the other is under the Qt Commercial license. I don't advise trying to fight this. They are playing about as fair as it gets.
Plus if you try and use the GPL version for commercial development it is as eay as running the strings command on your binary and greping for the appropriate words....they will catch you.
I have used QT in both open source and now commercial ventures. They have a great business model. I was allowed me to test the software for a couple of years on open source projects and then when the time came to start my own business the choice was very simple. QT.
ok your firt point is valid. Win32 support? Who cares! apps in the start menu? It's not that hard to do honestly....and like the other poster said...I don't want JD's Grand daughter to use it....
My advise to you is get a degree in something other than CS....learn to become a great programmer on your own...yes it can be done....check the CS curriclum hell even audit some of the classes if you want. The point is programmer jobs are starting to look more and more like plumbers and electricians. A lot of programming is now contract work. American programmers simply cannot compete with Indian programmers when it comes to making low bids. I program almost eveyday, yet I am a computational chemist. For me it is the best of both worlds...interesting subject with hard problems to solve and I get to write a lot of code.
We use a lot of in-house software as well as vendor supplied stuff. My boss ( old timer ) does most of his coding in FORTRAN. I do all my coding in C++. We do a lot of scripting etc in Perl although I have all but switched to Ruby. Algorithm wise we do lots of computational demanding stuff. For instance my latest project has been to develop a molecular docking algorithm to try and quickly screen our in house library of 5 million compounds. These runs (if no other) filtering is used take about 1 minute a compound with the vendor supplied software...our algorithm does it in about 20 seconds...although to be fair I believe the venders algorithm gives the supperior results. Either way we are not capable of actually screening all these compounds with these algorithms. We do alot of prefiltering based on other molecular descriptors such as logP and molecular weight, etc..
We don't use any software like MATLAB...although we do use Mathematica to help in the derivation of new algorithms. There are many problems that would be interesting to look at in a virtual screening environment but are just to computationally demanding with today's computer power...and probably will be for many years to come...but hey that is job security I guess.:-)
Oh and as far as linear algebra classes...I have hand coded them to make use of the SSE and SSE2 register by using inline assembly for optimum performance. I got most of the information from intels web site on how to do this...they have several papers showing the improved performance. Compiler wise we use gcc, f77 and g++, although I am considering trying the intel compilers as a friend of mine back at the university of mississippi super computer center wrote up a nice report showing the superior floating point optimzations when using them.
Hope that answered most of your questions...for obvious reasons I can't go into the exact algorithmic details.
"Somehow I think you're not actually using the faster CPUs out there or you'd know how big a deal heat is."
Yeah you are right I made it all up. My Ph.D....all bullshit....me being a senior research scientist in computational chemistry....yep made that all up to....and to be quite honest we could care less about power consuption on our desktop workstation machines...which is were we do must of our computing...for our cluster yeah we consider it....but money is not really so much an issue when you are working to bring the next billion dollar drug to market. (Computer simulations are always going to be much cheaper than actually synthesizing all the possible candidate compounds) So forgive me when I point the finger back at you and say that you sound like a closet sys admin who would love to believe that he knows everything about computers. bleh..
"So, how is dual core going to ever be anything bigger than Itanium, Xeon, or any of the other technologies that fail to meet customer expectations?"
Science. In the Computational Chemistry field we have all but shifted from SGI and SUN workstations to desktop/workstation machines running linux. I can almost promise you that we will be buying some of these machines. I can't hardly wait....compiling will be so much faster.
I am with ya on the quick compiles...a make -j2 with these processors outta be smoking fast. I still do a lot of my compiling on a daul pentium III 1G machine...and it is really stating to be noticable when my lap top with a 2G pentium M processor is slightly faster!
Jesus do you people ever get tired of re-hashing the power consumption issue? As someone who needs the power at what ever cost I welcome these bad boys. Pentium M is a great desktop core, but I need pure speed.
Actually the fact that more people target windows does make it more insecure...It works just like open source with security. The more eyes you have looking (or in the case of hacking the more hackers trying) the better you will be.
Again you simply make my point. Only we programmers care. The ones who develop the applications that the users use....DUH! You must be some sort of real genius. Besides that you are sitting here argueing with me when I am telling you as a develpor what my reasons are.
Which is his point exactly....we aren't developing for BSD. We are developing for linux which means more software for Linux....and thus the "users" get a more functional OS than if they run BSD.
Actually it's becuase if I develop something under the BSD license then any company can come and take what I have done and repackage it...and sell it without any credit to me what so ever. Under the GPL they have to atleast extend the same right to others that I extended to them by releasing it under the GPL in the first place.
He is also posting on a geek website were people generally care much less about your grammer as opposed to you ideas. So why don't you quit with the spell checking and do something useful.
yeah...I agree they see things from a privledged point of view....and in my experience people that come from privledge are ofter extremely petty. That is worrisome. Most of the worlds leaders are most likely very petty.
"All I'm saying is in a few years time, when abortion rights are no longer found in our founding documents, and when the fundamentalists are able to convince a large majority, that we will look back on abortion like we look back on slavery today."
I highly doubt this. Unless you honestly believe that a raped woman should have to bear the birth of her rapist. Also Abortion is hear to stay until such time as humanity has determined who can have a child as well as when. You see abortion serves a purpous to society...right or wrong it serves a purpose. If it did not then it would not be there.
Don't get me wrong I am not totally justifying determining who can have a child, but in the future...long after our time the world will be way over populated and this will be an issue.
Abortion in early stages is simply not wrong. You see it as taking a life, but the woman going through it sees it as gaining HER life back. Who are we to impose the burden of raising a child on someone....before you answer who are we to tell another human not to have sex? I am neigther for it nor against it, but I honestly see those that are against it as being extreme along the lines of some of the islamic extremests.
"What I find most ridiculous is that the same group of people who said that a black man is less than a white man and that kidnapping and enslaving africans was the "white man's burden" are the same group who pretend that they are the worlds single moral authority, and claim that as the basis for everything they are for."
What I find ridiculous is that you actually believe that the people who did the enslaving are alive and determining what the moral of the world are.
Just out of curiosity do you have any particular techniques that you use to try and limit this? I also foudn I make many errors and then never catch them...probably as you suggest because when I re-read them I know what I wanted to say.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the first responder answerd your question beutifully. I am sure that the Trolls are aware that many people probably start projects with the free software and then buy the commercial license...at least as far as startup companies go. They probably consider these type of offenders as new business. However like the other poster said it is the concern that huge teams will develop at the expense of troll tech. TrollTech really is playing fair in this whole regard. I hope that the community doesn't smack them in the face.
ah yeah...exactly...if you had read the rest of my post
"Actually it is a little more complecated than this."
I am fully aware of the licensing schemas...as I have used both and had numerous dialogs with the people at trolltech about this.
Oh and no you will never develop an open source application that you will make millions of of by selling it. Others will simple get you code and set up shop. You will have to move to a service business. And no you can't do what troll tech does without buying a commercial license...I asked.
So quit with the pompous attitude. I was simple giving a simple answer to the original poster which is what he wanted.
That's it exactly. Basically their business model says here go play with out software/libraries for as long as you want...develop whatever you want. But if you sell the resulting code for profit then we also want some of the profit. Actually it is a little more complecated than this. You have to purchse the license before developing any of the code that will be used in a commercial product.
Nope. They are releasing two seperate versions of the code. One is under the GPL and the other is under the Qt Commercial license. I don't advise trying to fight this. They are playing about as fair as it gets.
Plus if you try and use the GPL version for commercial development it is as eay as running the strings command on your binary and greping for the appropriate words....they will catch you.
I have used QT in both open source and now commercial ventures. They have a great business model. I was allowed me to test the software for a couple of years on open source projects and then when the time came to start my own business the choice was very simple. QT.
ok your firt point is valid. Win32 support? Who cares! apps in the start menu? It's not that hard to do honestly....and like the other poster said...I don't want JD's Grand daughter to use it....
My advise to you is get a degree in something other than CS....learn to become a great programmer on your own...yes it can be done....check the CS curriclum hell even audit some of the classes if you want. The point is programmer jobs are starting to look more and more like plumbers and electricians. A lot of programming is now contract work. American programmers simply cannot compete with Indian programmers when it comes to making low bids. I program almost eveyday, yet I am a computational chemist. For me it is the best of both worlds...interesting subject with hard problems to solve and I get to write a lot of code.
We use a lot of in-house software as well as vendor supplied stuff. My boss ( old timer ) does most of his coding in FORTRAN. I do all my coding in C++. We do a lot of scripting etc in Perl although I have all but switched to Ruby. Algorithm wise we do lots of computational demanding stuff. For instance my latest project has been to develop a molecular docking algorithm to try and quickly screen our in house library of 5 million compounds. These runs (if no other) filtering is used take about 1 minute a compound with the vendor supplied software...our algorithm does it in about 20 seconds...although to be fair I believe the venders algorithm gives the supperior results. Either way we are not capable of actually screening all these compounds with these algorithms. We do alot of prefiltering based on other molecular descriptors such as logP and molecular weight, etc..
:-)
We don't use any software like MATLAB...although we do use Mathematica to help in the derivation of new algorithms. There are many problems that would be interesting to look at in a virtual screening environment but are just to computationally demanding with today's computer power...and probably will be for many years to come...but hey that is job security I guess.
Oh and as far as linear algebra classes...I have hand coded them to make use of the SSE and SSE2 register by using inline assembly for optimum performance. I got most of the information from intels web site on how to do this...they have several papers showing the improved performance. Compiler wise we use gcc, f77 and g++, although I am considering trying the intel compilers as a friend of mine back at the university of mississippi super computer center wrote up a nice report showing the superior floating point optimzations when using them.
Hope that answered most of your questions...for obvious reasons I can't go into the exact algorithmic details.
has been cosidered...but it is nice to have 1 desktop computer....as opposed to a small cluster.
"Somehow I think you're not actually using the faster CPUs out there or you'd know how big a deal heat is."
Yeah you are right I made it all up. My Ph.D....all bullshit....me being a senior research scientist in computational chemistry....yep made that all up to....and to be quite honest we could care less about power consuption on our desktop workstation machines...which is were we do must of our computing...for our cluster yeah we consider it....but money is not really so much an issue when you are working to bring the next billion dollar drug to market. (Computer simulations are always going to be much cheaper than actually synthesizing all the possible candidate compounds) So forgive me when I point the finger back at you and say that you sound like a closet sys admin who would love to believe that he knows everything about computers. bleh..
"So, how is dual core going to ever be anything bigger than Itanium, Xeon, or any of the other technologies that fail to meet customer expectations?"
Science. In the Computational Chemistry field we have all but shifted from SGI and SUN workstations to desktop/workstation machines running linux. I can almost promise you that we will be buying some of these machines. I can't hardly wait....compiling will be so much faster.
I am with ya on the quick compiles...a make -j2 with these processors outta be smoking fast. I still do a lot of my compiling on a daul pentium III 1G machine...and it is really stating to be noticable when my lap top with a 2G pentium M processor is slightly faster!
Jesus do you people ever get tired of re-hashing the power consumption issue? As someone who needs the power at what ever cost I welcome these bad boys. Pentium M is a great desktop core, but I need pure speed.
Actually the fact that more people target windows does make it more insecure...It works just like open source with security. The more eyes you have looking (or in the case of hacking the more hackers trying) the better you will be.
Mr. prodangle you are a dork!
Again you simply make my point. Only we programmers care. The ones who develop the applications that the users use....DUH! You must be some sort of real genius. Besides that you are sitting here argueing with me when I am telling you as a develpor what my reasons are.
I was going to reply to him but you said it so much better than I could have....Thanks!
Could not have said it better myself.
Which is his point exactly....we aren't developing for BSD. We are developing for linux which means more software for Linux....and thus the "users" get a more functional OS than if they run BSD.
Actually it's becuase if I develop something under the BSD license then any company can come and take what I have done and repackage it...and sell it without any credit to me what so ever. Under the GPL they have to atleast extend the same right to others that I extended to them by releasing it under the GPL in the first place.
He is also posting on a geek website were people generally care much less about your grammer as opposed to you ideas. So why don't you quit with the spell checking and do something useful.
yeah...I agree they see things from a privledged point of view....and in my experience people that come from privledge are ofter extremely petty. That is worrisome. Most of the worlds leaders are most likely very petty.
I am for it because people like you should have been aborted.
"All I'm saying is in a few years time, when abortion rights are no longer found in our founding documents, and when the fundamentalists are able to convince a large majority, that we will look back on abortion like we look back on slavery today."
I highly doubt this. Unless you honestly believe that a raped woman should have to bear the birth of her rapist. Also Abortion is hear to stay until such time as humanity has determined who can have a child as well as when. You see abortion serves a purpous to society...right or wrong it serves a purpose. If it did not then it would not be there.
Don't get me wrong I am not totally justifying determining who can have a child, but in the future...long after our time the world will be way over populated and this will be an issue.
Abortion in early stages is simply not wrong. You see it as taking a life, but the woman going through it sees it as gaining HER life back. Who are we to impose the burden of raising a child on someone....before you answer who are we to tell another human not to have sex? I am neigther for it nor against it, but I honestly see those that are against it as being extreme along the lines of some of the islamic extremests.
"What I find most ridiculous is that the same group of people who said that a black man is less than a white man and that kidnapping and enslaving africans was the "white man's burden" are the same group who pretend that they are the worlds single moral authority, and claim that as the basis for everything they are for."
What I find ridiculous is that you actually believe that the people who did the enslaving are alive and determining what the moral of the world are.
Just out of curiosity do you have any particular techniques that you use to try and limit this? I also foudn I make many errors and then never catch them...probably as you suggest because when I re-read them I know what I wanted to say.