Re:The real question is (to me):
on
KDE 4.2 Is Released
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
That's pretty awful logic you have there. If the value of the features added is greater than the value of the features lost, then it should be worth switching.
Speaking as a KDE developer, it seems that most of us are embarrassed by it all and just keeping our heads down, coding the best we can, and hoping that it will eventually blow over.
To be honest, even I thought it was a reasonable idea at the time to release early. The trouble was that none of the application developers wanted to even start developing for KDE4 until we had a release out (since they wanted to develop for a stable API). And we risk ending up being like enlightenment - where they are never happy with the code and are continually improving without ever releasing.
"It's an adult thing - some adults like to do that".
Not really much different to trying to answer why it's on the news that people are trying to kill each other in horrible ways. Or are you going to block the TV news too?
> Microsoft assist SAMBA team with interop Isn't that just because they were forced to by the government?
> Microsoft donates to moonlight Of course - they are trying to push for silverlight. It's the same as.net - get the very basics working on multiple platforms, then claim to everyone that you have a cross-platform solution. Except that in reality most.net/silverlight programs won't actually run on mono/moonlight.
> Microsoft supports ODF Because they were pretty much forced. 'Regulatory feedback'.
Re:It's good news, but is it too late?
on
Qt Becomes LGPL
·
· Score: 1
> The point was, that this problem is still there, as detailed in the mailing list posting, if you don't use Q_SIGNAL
You're complaining that the problem is there if the programmer chooses it to be there? How that a problem? Even if Qt removed the option to enable 'signal', a programmer could still "#define signal Q_SIGNAL" if they wanted, and thus 'polute' the namespace.
> why bother to construct the UI from an XML file during runtime?
Some programs allow the user to construct their own GUIs. Kontact does it, for example, as part of their exchange support. If you're not convinced - how about DBUS support? DBus communication is an example of when you want to convert a string to an actual function. Or scripting support - if you want to use a Qt object via javascript?
(Btw, you realise that you're talking to two different people?)
Re:It's good news, but is it too late?
on
Qt Becomes LGPL
·
· Score: 1
> I don't really see the point in using a language, when you don't actually use pretty much anything of this language.
Templates are hardly the only feature of c++. Can't you make your point without completely over exaggerating everything?
> especially when they pollute the main namespace.
You're linking to a post that is 7 years old? Qt lets you choose between using 'signals' or using Q_SIGNALS. KDE uses latter, specifically to avoid namespace problems.
> Moc is imho simply a hack for something the language can deliver itself by now.
Another big advantage that that link doesn't mention is scripting support. Qt binds very nicely to javascript, python, etc. C++ templates don't allow for introspection and calling functions based purely on a string name. (At least, afaik. Correct me if I'm wrong)
Re:It's good news, but is it too late?
on
Qt Becomes LGPL
·
· Score: 1
> Because it forces me to program C++ in a way that is very unlike C++.
Wow, that's your whole argument for why it's a major nuisance? Really? It takes about 10 minutes to learn.
Re:It's good news, but is it too late?
on
Qt Becomes LGPL
·
· Score: 1
Specifically, what about MOC causes a major nuisance to you?
For example? What copy-paste doesn't work between KDE and Gnome?
Re:I'm not a copyright lawyer
on
Qt Becomes LGPL
·
· Score: 1
I think what you are complaining about is that you cannot use GPLed code in a BSD project and then treat the whole thing as BSD licensed code.
You can, however, use GPL code in a BSD project, and then treat the GPL code as GPL code and the BSD code as BSD code...
Re:I'm not a copyright lawyer
on
Qt Becomes LGPL
·
· Score: 1
A proprietary (closed-sourced) program cannot use a GPL'ed library. So previously you couldn't write a closed-sourced program with the GPL'ed version of Qt.
> No, they were hostile to changing the design for the developed world
Okay, so don't change the design. Solved that problem already.
> hostile to selling to any agency other than national ministries of education or something similar, because dealing with smaller lots and smaller entities drives up per-unit costs.
By how much? It seems that people were willing to pay the extra per-unit cost. So there's no real problem here either.
Um, there's something seriously wrong with your machine.
cd/usr/share/doc; time ls | wc -l
real 0m0.021s user 0m0.008s sys 0m0.004s
That folder contains just under 2000 files/directories. Repeating on/etc (with about 500 files) gives similar results. Likewise deleting files shouldn't take so long
Slashdot Mirror
That's pretty awful logic you have there. If the value of the features added is greater than the value of the features lost, then it should be worth switching.
Speaking as a KDE developer, it seems that most of us are embarrassed by it all and just keeping our heads down, coding the best we can, and hoping that it will eventually blow over.
To be honest, even I thought it was a reasonable idea at the time to release early. The trouble was that none of the application developers wanted to even start developing for KDE4 until we had a release out (since they wanted to develop for a stable API). And we risk ending up being like enlightenment - where they are never happy with the code and are continually improving without ever releasing.
Anyway, benefit of hindsight and all that.. :-)
I don't know if it was a factor, but it is deliciously funny, that Microsoft's Zune did not play Microsoft's PlayForSure format. :-)
"It's an adult thing - some adults like to do that".
Not really much different to trying to answer why it's on the news that people are trying to kill each other in horrible ways. Or are you going to block the TV news too?
> Microsoft assist SAMBA team with interop
Isn't that just because they were forced to by the government?
> Microsoft donates to moonlight .net - get the very basics working on multiple platforms, then claim to everyone that you have a cross-platform solution. Except that in reality most .net/silverlight programs won't actually run on mono/moonlight.
Of course - they are trying to push for silverlight. It's the same as
> Microsoft supports ODF
Because they were pretty much forced. 'Regulatory feedback'.
Ah, thanks for finding that
Yeah, there was another article about the rest of the Navy switching to Windows iirc.
Wasn't it big news about a year ago that the UK Navy were switching to Windows?
Yeah, here it is:
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08%2F12%2F18%2F006226&from=rss
Slashdot article from December 18 2008
> The point was, that this problem is still there, as detailed in the mailing list posting, if you don't use Q_SIGNAL
You're complaining that the problem is there if the programmer chooses it to be there? How that a problem? Even if Qt removed the option to enable 'signal', a programmer could still "#define signal Q_SIGNAL" if they wanted, and thus 'polute' the namespace.
> why bother to construct the UI from an XML file during runtime?
Some programs allow the user to construct their own GUIs. Kontact does it, for example, as part of their exchange support. If you're not convinced - how about DBUS support?
DBus communication is an example of when you want to convert a string to an actual function.
Or scripting support - if you want to use a Qt object via javascript?
(Btw, you realise that you're talking to two different people?)
> I don't really see the point in using a language, when you don't actually use pretty much anything of this language.
Templates are hardly the only feature of c++. Can't you make your point without completely over exaggerating everything?
> especially when they pollute the main namespace.
You're linking to a post that is 7 years old? Qt lets you choose between using 'signals' or using Q_SIGNALS. KDE uses latter, specifically to avoid namespace problems.
> Moc is imho simply a hack for something the language can deliver itself by now.
Not at all. Read:
http://doc.trolltech.com/4.4/templates.html
Another big advantage that that link doesn't mention is scripting support. Qt binds very nicely to javascript, python, etc. C++ templates don't allow for introspection and calling functions based purely on a string name. (At least, afaik. Correct me if I'm wrong)
> Because it forces me to program C++ in a way that is very unlike C++.
Wow, that's your whole argument for why it's a major nuisance? Really? It takes about 10 minutes to learn.
Specifically, what about MOC causes a major nuisance to you?
Qt Creator is a programming IDE. Qt Designer is a for designing the GUI. Qt Creator uses Qt Designer.
For example? What copy-paste doesn't work between KDE and Gnome?
I think what you are complaining about is that you cannot use GPLed code in a BSD project and then treat the whole thing as BSD licensed code.
You can, however, use GPL code in a BSD project, and then treat the GPL code as GPL code and the BSD code as BSD code...
A proprietary (closed-sourced) program cannot use a GPL'ed library. So previously you couldn't write a closed-sourced program with the GPL'ed version of Qt.
But now you can.
You know, firefox has a built in spell checker. That way your posts are automatically spell checked as you type.
True, but given that you have a brain, you're expected to use it.
Given that they are talking about 3D gaming on the playstation, surely it's obvious that "any source" refers to games, rather than some DVD movie.
> No, they were hostile to changing the design for the developed world
Okay, so don't change the design. Solved that problem already.
> hostile to selling to any agency other than national ministries of education or something similar, because dealing with smaller lots and smaller entities drives up per-unit costs.
By how much? It seems that people were willing to pay the extra per-unit cost. So there's no real problem here either.
You should read the history on why git was created to find out why it's called git.
For example?
First fetch
I also have raid 1, but it doesn't take longer than a 10th of a second to list a few thousand files
Um, there's something seriously wrong with your machine.
cd /usr/share/doc; time ls | wc -l
real 0m0.021s
user 0m0.008s
sys 0m0.004s
That folder contains just under 2000 files/directories. Repeating on /etc (with about 500 files) gives similar results.
Likewise deleting files shouldn't take so long