I did in fact use the setup I described... and you can check that imacs were sold with 32 megs on wikipedia. Please check your facts before calling me a lier.
Sorry but you are completely full of shit. OS X does not run for any reasonable definition of "run" on 32mb of RAM.
Have a look at the minimum requirements for OS X 10.1 which you say was the most efficient OS X.
Might as well just make another login that boots into twn and a terminal for when you need to do work. I assume you're not working on huge datasets all the time, so then you can run KDE/Gnome most of the time and still have the option of going minimal when you need it.
Yeah it's not the same thing. GTK is pretty garbage on windows. Qt has been running on windows for ages and is properly integrated with the native environment.
The dolphin in KDE4 is vastly different than that in KDE3. Although I actually like the KDE3 dolphin, it really is not at all the same as what will be shipped in KDE 4.0.
Always easy to snipe on the sidelines... Developer time is limited. If Aaron spends time getting the traditional menu in shape, then it is at the expense of other, more important features. What part of that do you not understand?
Keep in mind these are only the controversial features that people have whined about the most. There are tons of new features in the individual KDE apps that aren't mentioned there.
Rogers ruined Fido. My plan is still the same price, but everything else has doubled or tripled. Extra minutes are 30 cents instead of 10, long distance is 30 cents instead of 10. Roaming is several times more expensive, all the miscellaneous fees are at least doubled. Grrrr.
Your program from today is much more complex, does a hell of a lot more things, and, as you say, looks nicer. If you say you are taking just as long to produce it as the old program, then by definition, you are more productive. Your argument makes no sense. Just because the output in both cases is "a program" doesn't mean they are equivalent.
Sure you can touch type on it. Just takes about a day to get used to it. I agree they're pretty different, but the rest of your argument is equally bogus, as others have already pointed out.
There's also the massive difference in screen resolution (800x480 versus 1366x768) and size (7" vs. 11.1"), a jump in processor speed (900MHz to 1.2 GHz) more RAM (512 MB vs. 2GB), and the addition of a dual layer DVD burner.
Yeah the screen, RAM, and the bigger battery are probably the most expensive aside from the SSD. However Vista requires the 2GB to work nicely in the first place, so you're really paying for no real benefit.
(although I understand that is getting dumped for KDE4)
Not dumped, replaced. DCOP is gone, but it is replaced by DBUS, so you can do all the same things using dbus.
Re:Release Candidate or Beta --what's the diff?
on
KDE 4.0 RC 1 Released
·
· Score: 1
It's funny how worked up you get about this stuff. For the most part, I agree with you. KDE4.0 is going to have regressions compared to 3.5.x, and the current release is definitely not RC quality. But in the end, so what? Apparently it has thrown you into a terrible rage, but who really cares about the labeling or when it is ready? Once 4.0 is released, you can try it, and if it is not good enough for you, then you can wait till 4.1 or whatever version you believe lives up to the hype. Personally I'm already hooked on the new apps of KDE4.0 that I don't want to go back, and am willing to tolerate a panel with few features for a while.
Right.. And what was the outcome? A costly military operation to get a country controlled by druglords (Afghanistan is producing and exporting record amounts of opium), and the Taliban are slowly gaining back control. Sounds like a success. Sure, there were some valid reasons to be angry with Afghanistan and the Taliban, but invading the country accomplished exactly nothing.
Indeed, but it's a good rule of thumb to always check it and do *something* to handle errors, unless you specifically know that output failures aren't cared about here.
Bingo. I don't think anyone is arguing that important output shouldn't be checked. But if I write a printf for debug output or just a status message, I'm not going to bother checking the return value.
You're woefully out of touch; the days where Qt was technically superior to Gtk+ are long over. These days, Gtk+ is a better and more versatile toolkit.
Oh ok, you're nothing but a troll. Never mind then. Considering that I use Qt daily, and keep tabs on GTK, I know what I'm talking about when I say there is no comparison. With Qt, I can build a full, modern application, with a GUI that runs on Linux, Windows, and OS X equally well (GTK integration on OS X and Windows is really poor), I can handle XML, all sorts of SQL engines, network operations (HTTP/FTP/SSL etc etc), have access to a high performance canvas, high quality cross platform printing, the list goes on and on. With GTK I get a GUI toolkit that really is meant only for Linux development, and for everything outside of the GUI, I need to find external libs. With Qt, everything is available at the same high quality, a consistant, intuitive API, and the best documentation I've ever seen for any toolkit. I don't have the time to scrounge around for libraries to accomplish every little function I need to do, with each one in a different state of maturity, level of documentation, api, cross platform support, and build system.
So, you basically admit that it would be bad if Qt became the primary toolkit on Linux. I'm glad we agree.
Uhh.. no. And I suggest you work on your reading comprehension. What the hell is a "primary toolkit" anyway. That makes no sense.
You're confusing the GPL+linking exception with the LGPL. Please inform yourself about free software licenses before you start making claims about them.
True, I misread that. However it makes no difference, since they are almost the same. And for Trolltech, releasing Qt under GPL+linking exception would be suicide, since it would immediately dry up their entire revenue stream.
Furthermore, yes, the FSF prefers the GPL unless other licenses would be more conducive to the goals of free software. And the FSF prefers the GPL, they don't prefer GPL+commercial.
It doesn't matter to the FSF. As long as the code is GPL, it is free. Whether it can be distributed under another license is completely beside the point. As long as one of the licenses is GPL, it is free software. The option of a commercial license has zero effect on you if you're using the GPL version.
Well, so why does Troll Tech use dual licensing then? Let Troll Tech make Qt GPL-only and see how far they get.
Well you just answered your own question. GPL only would be suicide for the business. Not that this has any relation to what I said... It is possible to have commercial GPL software, I never said it works in all cases.
So we agree, then: forking Qt is only a theoretical possibility.
No, it is a real possibility. With enough manpower, you could make a better Qt than trolltech. Just like forking any other big project. You would need a hell of a lot of manpower to fork GTK or Linux or what have you. It's just the reality of trying to compete with the original authors of some code.
X11 historically has run on machines with as little as 1Mbyte of memory and 10MHz processors. There is no performance reason whatsoever not to use X11 on cell phones. Troll Tech knows this, so their claims to the contrary are nothing more than deliberate lies.
Sure, if you want X11 from 15 years ago it'll run on that kind of hardware. What a stupid argument. Hey, Windows ran on my 386. That doesn't mean I can install Vista on it.
I don't consider forking an open source project "screwing" the original developers. Quite to the contrary: I think Troll Tech has been screwing open source developers for a decade.
The question is what you are trying to achieve. There is no point in forking a project if it is going well. Look back at all the projects that have been forked in the past. They were all floundering, and required the fork to push them ahead. If Trolltech ever flounders with Qt, then a fork will start to make sense. Until then, the whole idea is an academic exercise.
heh. Yeah I hate the system wide spell checking, password storage, network transparency, common dialogs, keyboard shortcuts and interface behaviour. They are all products of those useless libraries:)
Such funding mechanisms are evidently not needed, since other toolkits have no problem getting funded without dual licensing.
GTK development is very slow in comparison to Qt because they have far less resources. You can't claim that GTK is the equivalent of Qt, it is far less featurefull.
Furthermore, if KDE and Qt were to become the standard environments on Linux, given Troll Tech's pricing, GUI development on Linux for commercial developers would be much more expensive than on Macintosh or Windows.
Since when does Qt have anything to do with people's ability to choose between Qt, GTK, Motif, TCL, Java Swing, SWT, or any of the other ways to make applications? Using Qt saves money overall because development is much more efficient (in my experience) but it in no way prevents you from choosing anything else.
No. Stallman has laid out his criteria for how to choose a license on his web site, and if you go by them, Qt should be GPL+linking exception; GPL+commercial is a bad license choice for Qt because it hurts free software by making it less attractive for large numbers of commercial developers to support free platforms.
That is incredibly wrong. The FSF recommends against using the LGPL. It was only used in the past if libraries could not have succeeded without it. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html
The Mono licenses also make it feasible to fork Mono and compete with Novell.
The same is possible with Qt. You can fork Qt and compete with Trolltech if you like. Of course that would be very difficult, but it is possible and legal.
Yes, and the same thing is not possible with Qt; if I fork Qt and build up a big developer base around it, I can't possibly compete with Troll Tech because my version, no matter how good it may be, wouldn't be usable by commercial developers.
Firstly, commercial developers can use GPL. Commercial is not proprietary. I have made money writing GPL software (using Qt) myself. And secondly, why is it a problem that you can't realistically screw over Trolltech with their own product? That would be an incredibly malicious move against a company that has done so much for open source and linux.
Troll Tech makes decisions that are in their best business interest, not decisions that are in the best interests of users or developers. For example, for mobile GUIs, Troll Tech ditched X11 and created an embedded version of Qt that takes over the entire screen, thereby ensuring that no toolkit can compete with them.
They ditched X11 because it isn't suited to low performance devices like phones. X11 is just now barely starting to become a feasible option, with relatively beefy hardware like the Nokia n800. Trolltech depends on its customers to stay in business, so decisions in their business interest are the same as the ones that benefit their customers. After all, if that was not the case, no one would buy Qt.
Slashdot Mirror
I did in fact use the setup I described... and you can check that imacs were sold with 32 megs on wikipedia. Please check your facts before calling me a lier.
Sorry but you are completely full of shit. OS X does not run for any reasonable definition of "run" on 32mb of RAM.
Have a look at the minimum requirements for OS X 10.1 which you say was the most efficient OS X.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_v10.1#System_Requirements
Notably: RAM required 128 megabytes
And you're saying you did OpenGL development on a quarter of the minimum requirements. Riiight.
Troll. Nice one though. The moderators believed you at least.
Might as well just make another login that boots into twn and a terminal for when you need to do work. I assume you're not working on huge datasets all the time, so then you can run KDE/Gnome most of the time and still have the option of going minimal when you need it.
Even the EeePC with its intel 915 graphics seems to work quite well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wedw701Gy8s
Yeah it's not the same thing. GTK is pretty garbage on windows. Qt has been running on windows for ages and is properly integrated with the native environment.
The dolphin in KDE4 is vastly different than that in KDE3. Although I actually like the KDE3 dolphin, it really is not at all the same as what will be shipped in KDE 4.0.
Always easy to snipe on the sidelines... Developer time is limited. If Aaron spends time getting the traditional menu in shape, then it is at the expense of other, more important features. What part of that do you not understand?
Keep in mind these are only the controversial features that people have whined about the most. There are tons of new features in the individual KDE apps that aren't mentioned there.
Will I still be able to have terminal, web and file panes all within the same tab?
/home within a single window, or middle clicking a file or link to open it in a viewer in a new tab?
Terminal, yes. Web, no.
How about dragging images from a website to my
Dragging images will still work (AFAIK). Dolphin does not have multiple tabs. Of course Konq still does.
Rogers ruined Fido. My plan is still the same price, but everything else has doubled or tripled. Extra minutes are 30 cents instead of 10, long distance is 30 cents instead of 10. Roaming is several times more expensive, all the miscellaneous fees are at least doubled. Grrrr.
Your program from today is much more complex, does a hell of a lot more things, and, as you say, looks nicer. If you say you are taking just as long to produce it as the old program, then by definition, you are more productive. Your argument makes no sense. Just because the output in both cases is "a program" doesn't mean they are equivalent.
Sure you can touch type on it. Just takes about a day to get used to it. I agree they're pretty different, but the rest of your argument is equally bogus, as others have already pointed out.
There's also the massive difference in screen resolution (800x480 versus 1366x768) and size (7" vs. 11.1"), a jump in processor speed (900MHz to 1.2 GHz) more RAM (512 MB vs. 2GB), and the addition of a dual layer DVD burner.
Yeah the screen, RAM, and the bigger battery are probably the most expensive aside from the SSD. However Vista requires the 2GB to work nicely in the first place, so you're really paying for no real benefit.
It's still a 900MHz chip. Some people have made it run at that speed (in Windows at least, not sure about linux).
http://www.radioparadise.com/
Listener supported radio with no commercials. Not everything is non-riaa, but there is lots of excellent indie music to discover there.
while GNOME has Firefox and GIMP
Neither Firefox or the GIMP are gnome apps. They use GTK, but the gnome libraries are entirely optional.
And things like the portland project aim to allow apps to use native file dialogs for the environment they're running in.
(although I understand that is getting dumped for KDE4)
Not dumped, replaced. DCOP is gone, but it is replaced by DBUS, so you can do all the same things using dbus.
It's funny how worked up you get about this stuff. For the most part, I agree with you. KDE4.0 is going to have regressions compared to 3.5.x, and the current release is definitely not RC quality. But in the end, so what? Apparently it has thrown you into a terrible rage, but who really cares about the labeling or when it is ready? Once 4.0 is released, you can try it, and if it is not good enough for you, then you can wait till 4.1 or whatever version you believe lives up to the hype. Personally I'm already hooked on the new apps of KDE4.0 that I don't want to go back, and am willing to tolerate a panel with few features for a while.
Ok, times have changed and nuclear power is now the best viable option. So why is greenpeace still rabidly against it?
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/footer/search?q=nuclear
This makes me so angry, because in almost all other matters, I support greenpeace. Why are they so ignorant on nuclear power??
Right.. And what was the outcome? A costly military operation to get a country controlled by druglords (Afghanistan is producing and exporting record amounts of opium), and the Taliban are slowly gaining back control. Sounds like a success. Sure, there were some valid reasons to be angry with Afghanistan and the Taliban, but invading the country accomplished exactly nothing.
Indeed, but it's a good rule of thumb to always check it and do *something* to handle errors, unless you specifically know that output failures aren't cared about here.
Bingo. I don't think anyone is arguing that important output shouldn't be checked. But if I write a printf for debug output or just a status message, I'm not going to bother checking the return value.
Well, to answer another poster - yes I was being insufficiently precise when I used the term system call. printf() is a C library call.
Insufficiently precise? Holy weasel words batman. You were wrong.
Heh. Out of arguments eh? I thought so.
You're woefully out of touch; the days where Qt was technically superior to Gtk+ are long over. These days, Gtk+ is a better and more versatile toolkit.
Oh ok, you're nothing but a troll. Never mind then. Considering that I use Qt daily, and keep tabs on GTK, I know what I'm talking about when I say there is no comparison. With Qt, I can build a full, modern application, with a GUI that runs on Linux, Windows, and OS X equally well (GTK integration on OS X and Windows is really poor), I can handle XML, all sorts of SQL engines, network operations (HTTP/FTP/SSL etc etc), have access to a high performance canvas, high quality cross platform printing, the list goes on and on. With GTK I get a GUI toolkit that really is meant only for Linux development, and for everything outside of the GUI, I need to find external libs. With Qt, everything is available at the same high quality, a consistant, intuitive API, and the best documentation I've ever seen for any toolkit. I don't have the time to scrounge around for libraries to accomplish every little function I need to do, with each one in a different state of maturity, level of documentation, api, cross platform support, and build system.
So, you basically admit that it would be bad if Qt became the primary toolkit on Linux. I'm glad we agree.
Uhh.. no. And I suggest you work on your reading comprehension. What the hell is a "primary toolkit" anyway. That makes no sense.
You're confusing the GPL+linking exception with the LGPL. Please inform yourself about free software licenses before you start making claims about them.
True, I misread that. However it makes no difference, since they are almost the same. And for Trolltech, releasing Qt under GPL+linking exception would be suicide, since it would immediately dry up their entire revenue stream.
Furthermore, yes, the FSF prefers the GPL unless other licenses would be more conducive to the goals of free software. And the FSF prefers the GPL, they don't prefer GPL+commercial.
It doesn't matter to the FSF. As long as the code is GPL, it is free. Whether it can be distributed under another license is completely beside the point. As long as one of the licenses is GPL, it is free software. The option of a commercial license has zero effect on you if you're using the GPL version.
Well, so why does Troll Tech use dual licensing then? Let Troll Tech make Qt GPL-only and see how far they get.
Well you just answered your own question. GPL only would be suicide for the business. Not that this has any relation to what I said... It is possible to have commercial GPL software, I never said it works in all cases.
So we agree, then: forking Qt is only a theoretical possibility.
No, it is a real possibility. With enough manpower, you could make a better Qt than trolltech. Just like forking any other big project. You would need a hell of a lot of manpower to fork GTK or Linux or what have you. It's just the reality of trying to compete with the original authors of some code.
X11 historically has run on machines with as little as 1Mbyte of memory and 10MHz processors. There is no performance reason whatsoever not to use X11 on cell phones. Troll Tech knows this, so their claims to the contrary are nothing more than deliberate lies.
Sure, if you want X11 from 15 years ago it'll run on that kind of hardware. What a stupid argument. Hey, Windows ran on my 386. That doesn't mean I can install Vista on it.
I don't consider forking an open source project "screwing" the original developers. Quite to the contrary: I think Troll Tech has been screwing open source developers for a decade.
The question is what you are trying to achieve. There is no point in forking a project if it is going well. Look back at all the projects that have been forked in the past. They were all floundering, and required the fork to push them ahead. If Trolltech ever flounders with Qt, then a fork will start to make sense. Until then, the whole idea is an academic exercise.
heh. Yeah I hate the system wide spell checking, password storage, network transparency, common dialogs, keyboard shortcuts and interface behaviour. They are all products of those useless libraries :)
Such funding mechanisms are evidently not needed, since other toolkits have no problem getting funded without dual licensing.
GTK development is very slow in comparison to Qt because they have far less resources. You can't claim that GTK is the equivalent of Qt, it is far less featurefull.
Furthermore, if KDE and Qt were to become the standard environments on Linux, given Troll Tech's pricing, GUI development on Linux for commercial developers would be much more expensive than on Macintosh or Windows.
Since when does Qt have anything to do with people's ability to choose between Qt, GTK, Motif, TCL, Java Swing, SWT, or any of the other ways to make applications? Using Qt saves money overall because development is much more efficient (in my experience) but it in no way prevents you from choosing anything else.
No. Stallman has laid out his criteria for how to choose a license on his web site, and if you go by them, Qt should be GPL+linking exception; GPL+commercial is a bad license choice for Qt because it hurts free software by making it less attractive for large numbers of commercial developers to support free platforms.
That is incredibly wrong. The FSF recommends against using the LGPL. It was only used in the past if libraries could not have succeeded without it. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html
The Mono licenses also make it feasible to fork Mono and compete with Novell.
The same is possible with Qt. You can fork Qt and compete with Trolltech if you like. Of course that would be very difficult, but it is possible and legal.
Yes, and the same thing is not possible with Qt; if I fork Qt and build up a big developer base around it, I can't possibly compete with Troll Tech because my version, no matter how good it may be, wouldn't be usable by commercial developers.
Firstly, commercial developers can use GPL. Commercial is not proprietary. I have made money writing GPL software (using Qt) myself. And secondly, why is it a problem that you can't realistically screw over Trolltech with their own product? That would be an incredibly malicious move against a company that has done so much for open source and linux.
Troll Tech makes decisions that are in their best business interest, not decisions that are in the best interests of users or developers. For example, for mobile GUIs, Troll Tech ditched X11 and created an embedded version of Qt that takes over the entire screen, thereby ensuring that no toolkit can compete with them.
They ditched X11 because it isn't suited to low performance devices like phones. X11 is just now barely starting to become a feasible option, with relatively beefy hardware like the Nokia n800. Trolltech depends on its customers to stay in business, so decisions in their business interest are the same as the ones that benefit their customers. After all, if that was not the case, no one would buy Qt.