The only way I found to display photos was to make a slideshow or to display them in the retouching dialog.
So you have found a way to look at the photos. So why are you whining that there's no way to look at the photos, when you admit that there is? Are you whining because you can retouch the photos while viewing them?
All in all I stick with my earlier comment, the only point of the program is to push the online services.
If that's it purpose, then it's doing a lousy job. I use iPhoto, and I have yet to see it push the online-services to me. I know that they are available if I want to use them (I haven't used them), but I haven't seen a talking paperclip telling me "It looks like you are viewing photos! Would you like to order a photobook from Apple's online-service?"
KDE: I'll say it again, from Kmail there's no print selection feature. My hope is KDE 4.0 will have that feature.
That's a roadblock on Linux'es way of "widespread adoption"? there's no "print selection" feature in Kmail? Uh, OK....
Hardware issues: I've got a usb keyboard that doesn't kick-in on boot sometimes.
My experiences are completely the opposite. I too have an USB-keyboard (Apple Keyboard in fact). I plugged in in to my Gentoo-box while it was running. System detected it without any problems and I could use it right away. What happened in Windows? I plugged it in, but I couldn't use it. It needed to install some drivers. I installed the drivers, and the machine rebooted. But I still couldn't use the keyboard, I had to plug in my old PS2-keyboard so I could log in! It installed even more drivers and rebooted. And it STILL did not work! It installed even more drivers and THEN it started to work!
No, it doesn't stop there. What happens if I unplug the keyboard and re-plug it in to a different USB-port? In Linux, it just works. But in Windows, it wont work untill I reinstall the drivers! Hello?! it's the same keyboard, only on different port!
Nope, you are not bound to a contract you didn't agree to and unless the computer asks you to agree while displaying the EULA it does not matter. The merchant may be bound by it but you aren't.
Maybe, but that was what the OEM/MS told the customer. And at that point, 95% of people wanting a refund dropped the matter. Of course the law says one thing, but the companies said something else. The consumer was in the right, but most of the time they thought that itt's not worth the hassle to get the refund (MS told them that OEM will give them the refund, and OEM told them that MS will give them the refund. And they both said that since they already "used" the product, the customer is not eligble for a refund). In the end, they could get their refund, but it took a lot of time and energy. And many simply thought that they really could not get a refund, since they "used" the product.
Typically, the software box says that there use of the software is subject to an EULA, contained inside. Courts have said that as long as you know that it's there before you buy and have the right to refuse the agreement after you buy (by, say, returning the product), you have that.
I remember that there has been some problems with certain software-makers (*cough*Microsoft*cough*) regarding that. If you want to get a refund on pre-install copy of Windows, as the EULA says, you have to ask for it before actually using the product. But, unfortunately, if you want to read the EULA (and find out that you have the right to a refund), you have to use the product (booting the machine up until it displays the EULA, is considered "using the product").
So they might as well say in the eule something like "You have the right to ask for a refund on unused copy of SOFTWARE. But if you are reading this, it's too late for that!".
If you want to get a refund as according to the EULA, you have to boot the machine with a boot-disk, that you will thn use to install Linux, *BSD or something else. But that means that you will never read the EULA, and therefore will not find out that you have a right to refund...
The same thing can happen to you on Macintosh, since nothing prevents you from unplugging the device too soon and you may not even see the dialog box after the fact.
Of course it can happen in Macs as well, I never said that it couldn't. And what should the Mac do? Give the user an electric-shock if he tries to unplug the device without unmounting it?
The correct thing to do is to tell the user when the device is in use and to finish with it as soon as possible.
Well, iTunes DOES have a text saying "updating iPod" (or something like that) with a progress-bar. And the iPod has a text saying "Do not disconnect". I think those are pretty self-explanatory.
A lot of the more popular pieces of Novell's lineup (GroupWise, ZenWorks, NetMail) can be run from a Windows server over Active Directory now.
Difference is that AD sucks, whereas Netware/eDirectory does not. I'm pretty sure that if I ever get an ulcer, it's because of the stress AD gives me... Wanna do something relatively simple (like, create a group with certain members, and give that group access to certain folders)? Here, go through these zillion dialog-boxes, and click around dozens of times! Oh, if you need to change group-permissions afterwards, please note how those forementioned dialog-boxes freeze and die, making this relatively simple procedure an experiment in agony!
Burn in hell, AD! Burn in hell! Oh Netware, how I loved thee....
If you want to get some serious swearing done, stick to English, or even better, German.
Or even better, Finnish. I kid you not, Finnish has some serious swearing in it. I have yet to come across a curse-word with the sheer brutality and power than "Perkele" (just one of the Finnish words for Satan, you could also use "Saatana" in Finnish). I guess it's the combination of vowels and hard consonants. Or the word "Jumalauta", which would in English mean "God help me" or "oh God", but in Finnish it's said in an extremely aggressive manner. Finnish curse-words feel like a sharp kick to the jaw, whereas is other languages they feel.... well, weak. The problem with Finnish curse-words is that foreign people won't know that you are cursing.
If you want really weak cursing, stick to Swedish;).
I'm not a developer. But I do use several apps built on Qt. And what are you going to do about it? Beat me up, untill I use some crappy GTK+-apps instead?
Software built on Linux doesn't need to fall under the GPL, but software built on Qt does.
and that's a problem because....? Because it makes things too difficult for creators of proprietary software? Funny, here you whined that it's too easy to write proprietary apps with Qt. And now you whine that it's too HARD to write proprietary apps with Qt! Suggestion: try to make up your mind, OK?
You should offer bug reports to the Linux kernel folks; the Linux kernel project is not dual-licensed. All contributors and all users of the Linux kernel use it under the same conditions.
And all people can use Qt, as mandated by the GPL. Nobody is forced to buy the commercial-license, but they can do so if they want to.
For example, Joe might give you free cocaine, and you might enjoy it, but that wouldn't make it a good thing. And Joe would give you free cocaine because he knows that there is a good chance that you get addicted to it and have to come back to him later and pay lots of money for it. That's roughly the kind of strategy Troll Tech uses with Qt.
That is a bunch of bullshit and you know it! What exactly makes you think that you are required to pay money for Qt? In case you are a retard: IT'S LICENSED UNDER THE GPL! Oh, you want to write proprietary apps with it, without giving anything in return to anyone? Now, that's pure greed and selfishness, and you know it! And I don't give a shit if some pusher of proprietary crap has to pay for Qt. Really, I don't.
I guess the REAL problem you have with Qt is that it's stealing thunder from your own pet-project (I assume it's GTK+). In that case: Cry me a fucking river.
There is no technical or user interface reason why iPod functionality is so limited. Either Apple doesn't have the software development resources to add these functions, or it's a deliberate marketing decision by them to keep you tied to iTunes.
It's a marketing-desicion to keep the user tied to iTunes. Is this news to you?
I want to just unplug it when I'm done. That works on other platforms, why not on Macintosh?
I remember when I copied some files to my USB-thumbdrive on XP. I copied the files, and simply removed the drive from the computer. When I got back home, I noticed that no files were in fact copied. There is a reason why we "safely remove" removable media. We do it on Macs, Windows and Linux. What "other platforms" are you talking about, since I run in to this issue on all three platforms? All three systems tell me to "safely remove" the media, instead of simply unplugging it.
Other MP3 players fully integrate disk, photo, and music player functions--you copy files to the device and they are accessible.
On my iPod Mini, the songs are automatically synced the moment I plug it in the computer. No need to drag files around.
And the fact that after all these years, Apple still hasn't figured out how to let you safely remove removable devices without dragging them into the trash can first is sad.
Well, I can unmount the Mini by dragging it to the Thrash. Or I can hit the nifty "Eject" button in Finder or iTunes. Or I can right-click the icon on the desktop and choose "Eject" from there. How else would you like to do it? There's already 4 different methods to remove the removable device.
Re:Replace the Wheel with a full sized touch scree
on
Video iPod Screen Test
·
· Score: 1
The iPod could compete with the PSP by replacing the screen/touch wheel version with a full sized touch screen.
That's a fucking bad idea! Right now I can use the iPod without even looking at it. I can feel where the wheel is. If it were in a touchscreen instead, I would have to hold the device in my hand and look at it, whenever I want to skip a song or adjust the volume! with touchscreen there would be zero tactile feedback! And the screen would get dirty really fast.
Remember: iPod is a music-playback device. the video is merely an added bonus, it's primary purpose if to play back music.
Apple's Aperture is a tool for photography-professionals. The thing you linked to is (and I quote): "Aperture VISTA(TM) is an enterprise software solution which reduces operational risk and improves efficiency through the visual management of the data center by improving Learn Moreplanning, design, provisioning, troubleshooting and reporting.". Yeah, I can see how someone could mix those two up... And it's named VISTA, maybe Microsoft should be worried?
P.S. After reading the descripiton of Aperture VISTA, I still have no idea what it actually does. Hooray for buzzwords!
So, your claim rests on your assumption that it's self-evident that dual licensing is good for free software.
I claim that releasing software under the GPL is a good thing for free software. I guess you would quit your whining if Qt was NOT released as free software? I guess things would be a lot better then, huh? Because free software movement would be a lot better off if we didn't have kick-ass toolkit in our disposal?
But it isn't self-evident to me, nor is it to lots of other developers. In fact, I think Troll Tech's licensing scheme is harmful for free software, and I have given you some reasons for that.
Yes, in your other message you said that the problem with Qt is that it's too easy to write proprietary sogftware using Qt. But since it's even easier to write proprietary software using GTK+ (you don't have to pay anyone, unlike with Qt), and you still only whine about Qt, I can only assume that you are hypocritical and that you have double-standards.
The other claim against Qt is that it's too _hard_ to write proprietary software using Qt, since you have to pay TrollTech (unlike with GTK+). To that I say: tough! As a supporter of free software, I don't give a flying fuck if pushers of proprietary software have to pay for Qt! If anything, TT and Qt make it MORE appealing to write free software. Either you write proprietary software and pay for the privilege. Or you write free software and don't pay a thing.
Your insults and flames don't substantiate your arguments.
I get riled up when someone makes stupid claims like "releasing GPL'ed software harms free software". That whole comment is the stupidest thing I have ever heard!
KDE proponents like you have no credibility when it comes to judging licensing issues--you got it badly wrong before, and it's pretty clear you are still getting it wrong this time around.
I claim that releasing GPL'ed software is a good thing for free software. You claim that it harms free software. Seriously: which of us is right?
And if you hope that this issue will just go away
I don't see any "issue". I see a kick-ass GPL'ed toolkit, and a bunch of hypocritical whiners complaining about some moronic "issues".
And another thing: According to TT's latest customer-survey, 28% of their customers (as in , people/companies that have bought their license) have participated in free software projects, with 68% targetting the Linux-platform. And TT also sponsors several free-software developers (Zack Rusin and Aaron Seigo for example). It seems to me that Qt is NOT "killing" free software, quite the contrary! they are funneling money and resources in to free software, they are bringing in more and more developers in to free software-community and they are actively promoting free software. Hell, thanks to Qt, we have a thriving community of free software developers formed around Qt and KDE! And still, some retards think that they are "killing" free software and that they must be stopped! Seriously: what is wrong with you people?
And the problem with that is that it makes it easy to write proprietary software using Qt--all you have to do is fork over some money to Troll Tech.
And that money is used to improve Qt, which in turn helps developers of Free Software since they have a kick ass Free toolkit at their disposal. And isn't it even easier to write proprietary software using GTK+? I mean, you don't have to pay anyone, unlike with Qt. So why are you whining about Qt and not GTK? It's even easier to write proprietaty apps with GTK than with Qt!
Either you don't know what you are talking about, or you are a hypocritical asshole. Which one is it?
Troll Tech's dual licensing scheme inhibits most of the things that make open source good: free sharing of ideas and improvements
The codebase is open, go right ahead and take a look and share your ideas. No-one is stopping you.
communal development
So, I can improve GTK+ just like that?`I can drop my code there right away if I wanted to? No? That's what I thought....
and the ability of different forks to compete on merit alone.
I don't see any competing GTK+-forks around, do you? So why aren't you whining about GTK+? And you could fork Qt right now if you wanted to. Just because no-one has forked it is not TT's problems.
Troll Tech is using open source as a marketing gimmick to sell proprietary software.
Again: Qt is licensed under the GPL. The codebase is identical to the commercial version. So what the hell are you blathering about this "proprietary software"?
The Gtk+ team or Gnome foundation doesn't have any special rights over the Gtk+ code base--they can't make a commercial version. Troll Tech, however, has special rights over the Qt code base, they can make a commercial version, and they have. Troll Tech is using an open source license to promote their proprietary software.
*sigh*^.... Again: Qt is licensed under the GPL. So how exactyly is it "proprietary software"? And all the money they receive from sales of Qt is funneled to the developement of Qt. And that benefits free software since Qt is free software and many free software apps and projects use it.
And so what if there's a commercial version available? Are you forced to use it? Are you somehow prevented from forking Qt?
Apparently, that is what you believe, because that is exactly what proponents of Qt are doing: they are using an open source licensing gimmick to promote Troll Tech's business and help them make and sell proprietary software.
are you a retard? Qt is licensed under the GPL, period. True, there is a "commercial" license available as well, but the codebase is 100% identical.
Actually, it is your and Troll Tech's mindset that is disturbingly close to Microsoft's
Microsoft hates free software. TrollTech has licensed their primary product under the GPL and they actively promote and develop it. If you seriously believe that TT is like Microsoft, you have some SERIOUS issues.
You apparently put expediency and the appearance of freedom ahead of actual freedom and open source principles, so you should fit right in at Microsoft.
You hate Qt because it's licensed under the GPL. I applaud TT for licensing Qt under the GPL. Microsoft hates the GPL. Yet you claim that I have similar mindset as Microsoft does?
The fact that Troll Tech may choose whatever license they like doesn't place them above criticism: their policies are a threat to free software and open source software, and, of course, I am going to continue to criticise them for them.
Yeah, releasing kick-ass software under the GPL is a clear threat to Free Software. Seriously: are you a retard?
I was wondering how long it would take for this nonsense to surface itself. And it didn't take long: First message!
In short: what is the "issue" with Qt? the fact that it licensed under the GPL. And why is that a problem? Because it makes it difficult to write proprietary software using Qt (you have to pay TT in order to do so).
Hello, why exactly is that a problem? Since when did free software movement turn from creating great software that is Free, in to something meant to satisfy the whims of pushers of proprietary software? The people who whine about Qt and it's license are those who want to use it in order to earn money, but they don't want to give anyone else anything in return. They don't want to share the code and they don't want to pay TrollTech. Why exactly should we care one bit about those people/companies? In my book, they are selfish assholes who insist that others must give them kick-ass tools for free, but they don't want to give anything back in return. I guess Open Source and Free Software is great only as long as you can use it to earn money, without giving anything in return. But the moment you are required to do something in return, we get endless bithing and moaning.
And the funny thing is that people demanded that TrollTech must make their toolkit free software. TrollTech did so. And now that TrollTech is telling people to make their software Free Software as well, those same people whine and moan! First they demanded TT to free their toolkit. And when TT demanded the same thing from them in return, they cry and whine! What a bunch of hypocritical assholes! "Do as I say, not as I do!". They demand the right to earn money from Qt, but they want to deny TT the same right.
If you whine about Qt's license (GPL), then I guess you really care about proprietary software, not free software. As a supporter of free software, I don't give a flying fuck about your problems. Why don't you go push your proprietary crap elsewhere? We have enough problems with Microsoft, do we need MORE proprietary crap?
Qt is "free software" in the narrow sense of conforming to the free software license.
If it's licensed under the GPL, then it is free software, without quotes. It is 100% free software. as defined by the Free Software Foundation.
It is also "proprietary software" in the sense that it is wholly owned and controlled by a single entity.
GTK+ is controlled by the GTK+ team. GNOME is controlled by the GNOME-team. Mozilla and Firefox are controlled by the Mozilla Foundation. So why exactly are you singling out TrollTech and Qt here? And in case you feel uncomfortable with TrollTech being in "control" of Qt: Go right ahead and fork it. You could do it right now if you wanted to. You are not in any way "controlled" by TT, since you could take their ball, and walk away with it right now if you wanted to.
Finally, just because something is under a free software license doesn't mean it's under the correct free software license.
Who decides what is "correct" and what is not? you? As Linus said: "He who writes the code, decides". TT wrote the code, therefore they get to choose the license. If you find their license unacceptable (if you do, I guess you just want to use Qt to write proprietary software, right? Oh, what a big supporter of free software you are!), use something else, and quit your whining! If someone decides to use Qt, it's their decision, and it does not concern you in any shape or form.
The GNU project, for example, deliberately does not use the pure GPL for things like the standard C library because it would limit commercial adoption of GNU, while Troll Tech deliberately chose the GPL for their no-pay version for just that reason.
Oh I see. the whole point of creating free software is to suck up to creators of proprietary software! I never realized that that was Stallmans vision in the early eighties, thanks for enlightening me!
Seriously, I find the hypocrisy appaling. We have great software that is licensed as free software. And now people are whining because the license prevents them from closing the source and earning $$$$ from it, while giving other jack shit in return! Want to earn money from Qt? Pay for the license! Don't want to pay? Then release your code under the GPL. You are basically demanding that you must have the right to earn money from Qt for free, but you want to deny TrollTech (the creators of Qt) that same right! "Do as I say! Not as I do!".
Seriously: since when did free software turn from creating kick-ass free software in to "we must satisfy the whims of corporations who want to develop proprietary software!"?
I heard that Microsoft is hiring. People like you would fit right in there!
However, KDE additions to Troll Tech's platform don't wean people off any proprietary solution, they only strengthen it.
Since Qt is licensed under the GPL, I would REALLY like to know what makes you think that it's a "proprietary solution"? Or is free software, licenced under the GPL as written by the Free Software Foundation really "proprietary software"? if GPL'ed software is in reality "proprietary", what, pray tell, is free software?
It's been a LONG time since my X didn't "want to play". But if we want to go down that route: try using Vi when you have no power! Maybe we should just use pen and paper?
Re:Another feature to run down the battery...
on
Nokia Engineers on KHTML
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I have Nokia 9300 Communicator. It has a GPRS-connection on all the time, so new emails are pushed to it instantly. I also make several phone-calls every day and use the PDA-functionality extensively. And the battery lasts for several days before needing a recharge.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you talking about the penis?
So you have found a way to look at the photos. So why are you whining that there's no way to look at the photos, when you admit that there is? Are you whining because you can retouch the photos while viewing them?
If that's it purpose, then it's doing a lousy job. I use iPhoto, and I have yet to see it push the online-services to me. I know that they are available if I want to use them (I haven't used them), but I haven't seen a talking paperclip telling me "It looks like you are viewing photos! Would you like to order a photobook from Apple's online-service?"
That's a roadblock on Linux'es way of "widespread adoption"? there's no "print selection" feature in Kmail? Uh, OK....
My experiences are completely the opposite. I too have an USB-keyboard (Apple Keyboard in fact). I plugged in in to my Gentoo-box while it was running. System detected it without any problems and I could use it right away. What happened in Windows? I plugged it in, but I couldn't use it. It needed to install some drivers. I installed the drivers, and the machine rebooted. But I still couldn't use the keyboard, I had to plug in my old PS2-keyboard so I could log in! It installed even more drivers and rebooted. And it STILL did not work! It installed even more drivers and THEN it started to work!
No, it doesn't stop there. What happens if I unplug the keyboard and re-plug it in to a different USB-port? In Linux, it just works. But in Windows, it wont work untill I reinstall the drivers! Hello?! it's the same keyboard, only on different port!
Maybe, but that was what the OEM/MS told the customer. And at that point, 95% of people wanting a refund dropped the matter. Of course the law says one thing, but the companies said something else. The consumer was in the right, but most of the time they thought that itt's not worth the hassle to get the refund (MS told them that OEM will give them the refund, and OEM told them that MS will give them the refund. And they both said that since they already "used" the product, the customer is not eligble for a refund). In the end, they could get their refund, but it took a lot of time and energy. And many simply thought that they really could not get a refund, since they "used" the product.
I remember that there has been some problems with certain software-makers (*cough*Microsoft*cough*) regarding that. If you want to get a refund on pre-install copy of Windows, as the EULA says, you have to ask for it before actually using the product. But, unfortunately, if you want to read the EULA (and find out that you have the right to a refund), you have to use the product (booting the machine up until it displays the EULA, is considered "using the product").
So they might as well say in the eule something like "You have the right to ask for a refund on unused copy of SOFTWARE. But if you are reading this, it's too late for that!".
If you want to get a refund as according to the EULA, you have to boot the machine with a boot-disk, that you will thn use to install Linux, *BSD or something else. But that means that you will never read the EULA, and therefore will not find out that you have a right to refund...
Of course it can happen in Macs as well, I never said that it couldn't. And what should the Mac do? Give the user an electric-shock if he tries to unplug the device without unmounting it?
Well, iTunes DOES have a text saying "updating iPod" (or something like that) with a progress-bar. And the iPod has a text saying "Do not disconnect". I think those are pretty self-explanatory.
Difference is that AD sucks, whereas Netware/eDirectory does not. I'm pretty sure that if I ever get an ulcer, it's because of the stress AD gives me... Wanna do something relatively simple (like, create a group with certain members, and give that group access to certain folders)? Here, go through these zillion dialog-boxes, and click around dozens of times! Oh, if you need to change group-permissions afterwards, please note how those forementioned dialog-boxes freeze and die, making this relatively simple procedure an experiment in agony!
Burn in hell, AD! Burn in hell! Oh Netware, how I loved thee....
Or even better, Finnish. I kid you not, Finnish has some serious swearing in it. I have yet to come across a curse-word with the sheer brutality and power than "Perkele" (just one of the Finnish words for Satan, you could also use "Saatana" in Finnish). I guess it's the combination of vowels and hard consonants. Or the word "Jumalauta", which would in English mean "God help me" or "oh God", but in Finnish it's said in an extremely aggressive manner. Finnish curse-words feel like a sharp kick to the jaw, whereas is other languages they feel.... well, weak. The problem with Finnish curse-words is that foreign people won't know that you are cursing.
If you want really weak cursing, stick to Swedish
And your keyboard sucks as well! So there!
I'm not a developer. But I do use several apps built on Qt. And what are you going to do about it? Beat me up, untill I use some crappy GTK+-apps instead?
and that's a problem because....? Because it makes things too difficult for creators of proprietary software? Funny, here you whined that it's too easy to write proprietary apps with Qt. And now you whine that it's too HARD to write proprietary apps with Qt! Suggestion: try to make up your mind, OK?
And all people can use Qt, as mandated by the GPL. Nobody is forced to buy the commercial-license, but they can do so if they want to.
That is a bunch of bullshit and you know it! What exactly makes you think that you are required to pay money for Qt? In case you are a retard: IT'S LICENSED UNDER THE GPL! Oh, you want to write proprietary apps with it, without giving anything in return to anyone? Now, that's pure greed and selfishness, and you know it! And I don't give a shit if some pusher of proprietary crap has to pay for Qt. Really, I don't.
I guess the REAL problem you have with Qt is that it's stealing thunder from your own pet-project (I assume it's GTK+). In that case: Cry me a fucking river.
It's a marketing-desicion to keep the user tied to iTunes. Is this news to you?
I remember when I copied some files to my USB-thumbdrive on XP. I copied the files, and simply removed the drive from the computer. When I got back home, I noticed that no files were in fact copied. There is a reason why we "safely remove" removable media. We do it on Macs, Windows and Linux. What "other platforms" are you talking about, since I run in to this issue on all three platforms? All three systems tell me to "safely remove" the media, instead of simply unplugging it.
On my iPod Mini, the songs are automatically synced the moment I plug it in the computer. No need to drag files around.
Well, I can unmount the Mini by dragging it to the Thrash. Or I can hit the nifty "Eject" button in Finder or iTunes. Or I can right-click the icon on the desktop and choose "Eject" from there. How else would you like to do it? There's already 4 different methods to remove the removable device.
That's a fucking bad idea! Right now I can use the iPod without even looking at it. I can feel where the wheel is. If it were in a touchscreen instead, I would have to hold the device in my hand and look at it, whenever I want to skip a song or adjust the volume! with touchscreen there would be zero tactile feedback! And the screen would get dirty really fast.
Remember: iPod is a music-playback device. the video is merely an added bonus, it's primary purpose if to play back music.
because it's a pain in the ass to carry the 32" TV to airplanes, trains, vacation...?
Apple's Aperture is a tool for photography-professionals. The thing you linked to is (and I quote): "Aperture VISTA(TM) is an enterprise software solution which reduces operational risk and improves efficiency through the visual management of the data center by improving Learn Moreplanning, design, provisioning, troubleshooting and reporting.". Yeah, I can see how someone could mix those two up... And it's named VISTA, maybe Microsoft should be worried?
P.S. After reading the descripiton of Aperture VISTA, I still have no idea what it actually does. Hooray for buzzwords!
Are you telling me that the government of USA will vote in the best interests of each and every individual citizen?
I claim that releasing software under the GPL is a good thing for free software. I guess you would quit your whining if Qt was NOT released as free software? I guess things would be a lot better then, huh? Because free software movement would be a lot better off if we didn't have kick-ass toolkit in our disposal?
Yes, in your other message you said that the problem with Qt is that it's too easy to write proprietary sogftware using Qt. But since it's even easier to write proprietary software using GTK+ (you don't have to pay anyone, unlike with Qt), and you still only whine about Qt, I can only assume that you are hypocritical and that you have double-standards.
The other claim against Qt is that it's too _hard_ to write proprietary software using Qt, since you have to pay TrollTech (unlike with GTK+). To that I say: tough! As a supporter of free software, I don't give a flying fuck if pushers of proprietary software have to pay for Qt! If anything, TT and Qt make it MORE appealing to write free software. Either you write proprietary software and pay for the privilege. Or you write free software and don't pay a thing.
I get riled up when someone makes stupid claims like "releasing GPL'ed software harms free software". That whole comment is the stupidest thing I have ever heard!
I claim that releasing GPL'ed software is a good thing for free software. You claim that it harms free software. Seriously: which of us is right?
I don't see any "issue". I see a kick-ass GPL'ed toolkit, and a bunch of hypocritical whiners complaining about some moronic "issues".
And another thing: According to TT's latest customer-survey, 28% of their customers (as in , people/companies that have bought their license) have participated in free software projects, with 68% targetting the Linux-platform. And TT also sponsors several free-software developers (Zack Rusin and Aaron Seigo for example). It seems to me that Qt is NOT "killing" free software, quite the contrary! they are funneling money and resources in to free software, they are bringing in more and more developers in to free software-community and they are actively promoting free software. Hell, thanks to Qt, we have a thriving community of free software developers formed around Qt and KDE! And still, some retards think that they are "killing" free software and that they must be stopped! Seriously: what is wrong with you people?
And that money is used to improve Qt, which in turn helps developers of Free Software since they have a kick ass Free toolkit at their disposal. And isn't it even easier to write proprietary software using GTK+? I mean, you don't have to pay anyone, unlike with Qt. So why are you whining about Qt and not GTK? It's even easier to write proprietaty apps with GTK than with Qt!
Either you don't know what you are talking about, or you are a hypocritical asshole. Which one is it?
The codebase is open, go right ahead and take a look and share your ideas. No-one is stopping you.
So, I can improve GTK+ just like that?`I can drop my code there right away if I wanted to? No? That's what I thought....
I don't see any competing GTK+-forks around, do you? So why aren't you whining about GTK+? And you could fork Qt right now if you wanted to. Just because no-one has forked it is not TT's problems.
Again: Qt is licensed under the GPL. The codebase is identical to the commercial version. So what the hell are you blathering about this "proprietary software"?
*sigh*^.... Again: Qt is licensed under the GPL. So how exactyly is it "proprietary software"? And all the money they receive from sales of Qt is funneled to the developement of Qt. And that benefits free software since Qt is free software and many free software apps and projects use it.
And so what if there's a commercial version available? Are you forced to use it? Are you somehow prevented from forking Qt?
are you a retard? Qt is licensed under the GPL, period. True, there is a "commercial" license available as well, but the codebase is 100% identical.
I was wondering how long it would take for this nonsense to surface itself. And it didn't take long: First message!
In short: what is the "issue" with Qt? the fact that it licensed under the GPL. And why is that a problem? Because it makes it difficult to write proprietary software using Qt (you have to pay TT in order to do so).
Hello, why exactly is that a problem? Since when did free software movement turn from creating great software that is Free, in to something meant to satisfy the whims of pushers of proprietary software? The people who whine about Qt and it's license are those who want to use it in order to earn money, but they don't want to give anyone else anything in return. They don't want to share the code and they don't want to pay TrollTech. Why exactly should we care one bit about those people/companies? In my book, they are selfish assholes who insist that others must give them kick-ass tools for free, but they don't want to give anything back in return. I guess Open Source and Free Software is great only as long as you can use it to earn money, without giving anything in return. But the moment you are required to do something in return, we get endless bithing and moaning.
And the funny thing is that people demanded that TrollTech must make their toolkit free software. TrollTech did so. And now that TrollTech is telling people to make their software Free Software as well, those same people whine and moan! First they demanded TT to free their toolkit. And when TT demanded the same thing from them in return, they cry and whine! What a bunch of hypocritical assholes! "Do as I say, not as I do!". They demand the right to earn money from Qt, but they want to deny TT the same right.
If you whine about Qt's license (GPL), then I guess you really care about proprietary software, not free software. As a supporter of free software, I don't give a flying fuck about your problems. Why don't you go push your proprietary crap elsewhere? We have enough problems with Microsoft, do we need MORE proprietary crap?
If it's licensed under the GPL, then it is free software, without quotes. It is 100% free software. as defined by the Free Software Foundation.
GTK+ is controlled by the GTK+ team. GNOME is controlled by the GNOME-team. Mozilla and Firefox are controlled by the Mozilla Foundation. So why exactly are you singling out TrollTech and Qt here? And in case you feel uncomfortable with TrollTech being in "control" of Qt: Go right ahead and fork it. You could do it right now if you wanted to. You are not in any way "controlled" by TT, since you could take their ball, and walk away with it right now if you wanted to.
Who decides what is "correct" and what is not? you? As Linus said: "He who writes the code, decides". TT wrote the code, therefore they get to choose the license. If you find their license unacceptable (if you do, I guess you just want to use Qt to write proprietary software, right? Oh, what a big supporter of free software you are!), use something else, and quit your whining! If someone decides to use Qt, it's their decision, and it does not concern you in any shape or form.
Oh I see. the whole point of creating free software is to suck up to creators of proprietary software! I never realized that that was Stallmans vision in the early eighties, thanks for enlightening me!
Seriously, I find the hypocrisy appaling. We have great software that is licensed as free software. And now people are whining because the license prevents them from closing the source and earning $$$$ from it, while giving other jack shit in return! Want to earn money from Qt? Pay for the license! Don't want to pay? Then release your code under the GPL. You are basically demanding that you must have the right to earn money from Qt for free, but you want to deny TrollTech (the creators of Qt) that same right! "Do as I say! Not as I do!".
Seriously: since when did free software turn from creating kick-ass free software in to "we must satisfy the whims of corporations who want to develop proprietary software!"?
I heard that Microsoft is hiring. People like you would fit right in there!
Since Qt is licensed under the GPL, I would REALLY like to know what makes you think that it's a "proprietary solution"? Or is free software, licenced under the GPL as written by the Free Software Foundation really "proprietary software"? if GPL'ed software is in reality "proprietary", what, pray tell, is free software?
It's been a LONG time since my X didn't "want to play". But if we want to go down that route: try using Vi when you have no power! Maybe we should just use pen and paper?
I have Nokia 9300 Communicator. It has a GPRS-connection on all the time, so new emails are pushed to it instantly. I also make several phone-calls every day and use the PDA-functionality extensively. And the battery lasts for several days before needing a recharge.
So I call bullshit on your comment.