Re:Kde nothing but a way for QT to sell licenses
on
KDE 3.2.0 Released
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I stand by my original rant. If my company wants to develop software for KDE/QT internally and not release the source code, I must buy a QT dev license (not cheap).
So, you want to develop an in-house software, right (that's what I assume the "internally" means)? In that case you do NOT have to buy Qt-license! The GPL says that code that is not released to the public (in other words: in-house software) do not have to have it's code released!
If I wrote a Qt/KDE-app that me and my GF would be using, I would have NO obligation to release the source! Likewise, if you write a piece of software that will be used internally at your company, you do NOT have to release the source! Therefore you can use the GPL'ed Qt just fine!
You are wrong. IF you want accurate inforamtio, click here. I quote:
The Qt Free Editions contain the same code as our Commercial Editions, but are governed by licensing terms that are entirely different.
Released under the open-source licenses GPL (GNU Public License) or QPL (Qt Public License), these licenses are for developers who want to build free software for Unix/Linux.
The Qt-toolkit used by the KDE-project is 100% free software. It is dual-licensed either under the QPL or GPL. Additionally you can buy a commercial-license as well.
So, Windows XP is "quite stable and secure" only if you use some additional tools? Wouldn't that mean that XP is not secure by itself, only if you beef it up with virus-scanners and the like it would be considered secure?
fuck you mang, not everyone has over a grand to spend on a single fucking license.
Then use a different toolkit! It's not like it's forced down your throat. And if you can't afford the license, then you should really re-examine your decision to write software for profit.
notice how there are better [Linux] apps that use GTK+ than use Qt? hmmm.. I wonder why?
There are? I use use Qt/KDE-apps and I think they kick ass. Of course there are good GTK+-apps, but there are also good Qt-apps. Your personal opinion is not a fact. It's just that: an opinion.
I'll write my closed source apps for Gnome and you KDErs can suck my fucking dick.
Well good for you
Not everyone wants "free as in not free" software.
No, you want software that you could use for free to write software for your own personal gain. Like I said, I have zero sympathy toardds freeloaders like you.
Re:Free? No, not really...
on
KDE 3.2.0 Released
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Like I said elsewhere: freeloaders are not supported. I have zero sympathy for people who want to take the hard work of others, use it for their own gain, and not contribute one damn thing back. But the fact that you have to pay for Qt in order to write closed-source apps doesn't seem to be scaring companies away. It seems to me that there are more commercial Qt-apps than there are commercial GTK+-apps. Maybe it just really is worth the money?
Yes I can say it is free software (both as in speech and in beer). It uses THE license used by the Free Software Foundation, what more do you want??
Freeloaders are not supported. Either you pay with your code, or with your money. And it seems that there are lots and lots of people/companies who think that Qt is well worth the money (it's not THAT much!), so I fail to see the problem here.
Not everyone can leave their computers on all the time. Unfortunately, due to high power taxes in Brazil, I can't leave my home Linux box on all the time, at least not for now (as my financial situation improves, I'll be able to afford an increased tax). But maybe I'm just a little impatient, especially given that my Windows XP box takes 1/5 of the time to boot (as in usable state). Granted, the Linux box has some crappy SCSI disks that I plan to replace ASAP, but even if it had decent disks, and I was using KDE, it would still be worse.
So you can't wait for 10-15 seconds it takes to get to the GUI? What are you doing with your computer if you are in a such a hurry?
It seems from your post that your Windows-machine and your Linux-machine doesn't have identical hardware, so you are comparing Apples to Oranges.
From my experiance, it takes about the same time to get to my Linux-desktop than it does to get to Windows-desktop. Of course, after reaching the desktop, Windows still loads services and add-on software, so it's not yet usable. And while running, my Linux-desktop is faster than the Windows-desktop.
So, your desktop-usage consists mostly of starting, restarting, restasting and restarting you GUI over and over again? You can't wait for few seconds for the GUI to start?
Criminals are easily identifiable on sight? That must make it damn easy for the police, how come they don't just arrest them all?
Of course one shouldn't arrest people based solely on the way they look. But quite often crimilans and thugs do have a certain look to them.
Walking in the street is a pretty normal thing to do, I do it a lot. Does that mean I want to rob everyone who happens to be in front of me?
If you start following someone (not merely walking in to same direction) in an otherwise empty street, the person in front of you might start to think that you are about to rob him. And why would you be following him in the first place?
Maybe they figured he saw some criminals (who are easily identifiable by sight) and hence they ran away from said criminals (they didn't want to risk turning around to see for themselves and hence slowing down) as well.
Uh-huh. And I'm the Queen of the Jungle and I have 7 pairs of boobs.
2. whether they wan't to rob him or not was not proven
IIRC they looked like criminals. They started walking after him. When he tried running away from them, they started running as well, trying to catch him.
What do you suggest they were planning to do? Give him some flowers?
AFAIK the default desktop in Mandrake is KDE. Hell, Mandrake was basically Red Hat + KDE at first. SUSE is still KDE-centric. Will they switch to GNOME? Maybe, but we have to wait and see. So far they haven't indicated that they will. Yes, they have improved their GNOME-support, but that hasn't been at the expence of KDE.
Yes I was serious when I asked about other GNOME-distros. But it all got buried beneath the other stuff (are Lindows etc. widely used or not). And besides, it would be more or less useless to just post a message saying "thank you, I guess I missed that distro in my list".
You basically said that "Yeah, but nobody uses those distros!". I merely pointed out that yes, they are in fact used, quite widely as well. Just because you don't happen to use them, or you don't know of anyone who uses them, it does not mean that no-one uses them. The distros you mentioned are concentrated either geographically (Conectiva) or by target-market (Lindows etc.). If you don't happen to be in the right place or in the right target-market, it's no wonder that you don't see them being used.
I fail to see how you could think that I took your comment as a "personal attack". Was it because I wrote "you" with all caps?
Conectiva is the leading distro in Brazil and I beliave in entire South-America. Lindows and the others are propably not in the same target-market you happen to be in (same can be said for Conectiva).
Just because YOU don't happen to know anyone who uses those distros, doesn't mean that they are not used. Hell, I don't know anyone who uses Red Hat, so I guess Red Hat is not videly used, eh?
Well, there's SUSE, Mandrake, Lindows, Xandros, Lycoris, Conectiva and several others that use KDE as their default. Distros that use GNOME as default are Red Hat/Fedora and UserLinux (are there others?). Rest are desktop-agnostic.
So it would seem that there are more distros useing KDE as default than there are distros using GNOME as default.
It never occured to you that space-exploration might (and would) indirectly help to solve the problem on Earth? Thanks to space-exploration, we could invent better methods at generating electricity. We could invent better recycling-methods. We could invent new and stronger alloys that could be used in lots of different things.
The possibilities are endless. People like you suffer from extreme case of short-sightedness.
But according to the reply I got, if I want to change the position of the toolbar it either means that the default configuration is flawed and should be fixed, or there's a bug. So which one is it?
Think a step further. Why do you want to change it?
Duh, because not all people think and behave identically. Desktop that was configurated accodring to your needs and wants might not be suitable for me for example. Some of use lots and lots of virtual desktop, some use just one. Others want their toolbar vertically, others want it horizontally. There is no "correct" way to set things like that up, we all bave personal needs.
If you want to change it then there's probably something wrong with the default configuration, or you want to unbreak something. The obvious solution is to either fix the bug, or provide a better default configuration.
If I want something to look or behave differently does not mean that it's a "bug". There might not be anything wrong with the default configuration as such. It might just be designed by someone who works differently than I do. You can't create an UI that satisfies everyone.
If the toolbar is at the bottom of the screen by default, and I want it at the top of the screen instead, is that a "bug"? Does that mean that the default settings are somehow flawed? How do you suppose that "bug" should be fixed? Should the toolbar be at the top of the screen by default just because I say so? What about all those people who want the toolbar at the bottom of the screen? You can't fix that "bug", what you can do is to make is so that the user can decide for himself.
It is impossible to create a default configuration that would fit each and every user perfectly. So what you can do is either to make the UI tweakable or try to force the users to adapt themselves around the UI, instead of vice-versa. And I don't like that latter option.
And this, my friend, is the GNOME philosophy.
What? Force-feeding certain things since "this is the right way to do it! If you disagree, you must be a moron! What we say is the correct thing to do, IS the correct thing to do!"? OK, I'm exaggarating a bit there;).
GNOME is not KDE. It has different goals and is targeted towards a different audience. Saying KDE is better than GNOME is like saying apples are better than oranges.
I can understand why some people use GNOME and I didn't say it's worse. I said why it's better for me. And I commented on few things listed as GNOME's strenths, since IMO they aren't really "strenghts", since KDE has them as well.
And what will you do in the case, when you want to change some option in GNOME, only to find out that you can't do it? Unless you use GConf, a system with similar UI to Windows Registry? How is that "easier to use"?
GNOME gives you the possibility to change some basic-settings via a GUI. KDE does that as well, and in addition to that, you can also change some advanced settings via GUI as well. But if you want to mess with only the few basic options, you can do that just fine. And once you know where to find those settings in question, it's not actually rocket-science to change them in the future. Just because there are options to change god knows what, does not mean that you are required to go anywhere near those particular options.
I remember when I started using the KDE Control Center. Yes, there are lots of options there. It took me maybe 15 minutes to get a good idea on where to find what. After that, it was not a problem at all. And in most cases, running KPersonaliser is enough to get the basic-settings adjusted to your liking.
You talk about "zillions of buttons" and "clutter". You can trim that clutter out. Don't like the buttons in the toolbar? remove them! Don't like the toolbar at all? Get rid of it!
What people complain about when it comes to KDE is the _default settings_. But few seem to know that those settings can be easily adjusted to your liking (and quite easily too, thanks to those all too often despised configuration-options). By default GNOME has less busy UI than KDE does. But KDE can be toned down just as well. The options in KDE don't prevent you from getting things done AT ALL. I mean, how often do we REALLY tweak the settings? Not very often. True, we might change the wallpaper now and then or something, but it doesn't take a rocket-scientist to do that (even on KDE!).
1. More consistentcy between apps due to the Human Interface Guidelines
KDE has HIG as well
2. Nicer interface layout. Better spacing, and I like the OS 9 style menu up the top, feels less like a windows clone, taking the best from both worlds. Also less flashly, more standard than KDE.
KDE also has (if you wan to) OS 9 style menu. UI is a matter of the taste, but it's alot easier for KDE to tweak their UI than it is for GNOME to create a background-technology (Kparts, KIO, DCOP etc.) that rivals that of KDE.
3. Options. Apart from Gconf, GNOME comes with far less options. KDE is nice, but trying to locate an option in the KDE Control Center is hell. GConf is a far better way to go.
This I don't understand. I mean, one of the most common complaints about KDE is "it has too many options!". Well, how is GNOME better? It has less options, fine. But you could achieve that in KDE as well: just don't change the options! Just because KDE gives you the tools to change everything in the UI does not mean that you should spend all your time tweaking those options. GNOME gives you less control (apart from GConf), and people somehow assume that's "better and easier to use", when you could achieve the same just fine in KDE: limit yourself to just few options. There, less options to tweak, just as easy.
And is GConf REALLY that much easier than KDE's Control Center? I seriously doubt it.
That said, I don't really have any problems navigating the KDE Control Center (it does have search-functionality). For starters: I have gotten used to it. Secondly, I don't spend all my time tweaking options, so how easy (or difficult) it is to change some options is more or less irrevelevant to me.
4. Apps. GNOME/GTK2+ has all the apps I want. Gems like Rhythmbox and the GIMP when there is nothing that compares on KDE. Also the old standbys like Abiword, Bluefish and Gnumeric.
Well, Qt/KDE has all the apps I need and want;). Stuff like K3B, Quanta, KDevelop, Konqueror, Juk etc. etc.
When you code a library or infrastructural utility under a BSD license, you are coding it for the good of everyone: if it could be beneficial to someone who is using a commercial vendor's product, then there is no reason why it can't get linked in.
And that code could be used to build an abusive monopoly.
RMS seems to imply that the evil corporate world will absorb your hard hours work, but he seems to omit/ignore the fact that your work will still be available even more freely under the BSD license than it would ever be under the GPL.
He who writes the code, gets to choose the license. If someone chooses GPL, I fail to see how that is YOUR problem. While in some way you might consider BSD-license to be "more free", it can be easily abused. GPL prevents that, and there are lots and lots of developers who don't want to see their code being abused.
Extend your generosity to other people's work shouldn't be mandatory.
If you are afraid that GPL will "pollute" your code, then don't use GPL'ed code! It really couldn't be any simpler! No-one is forcing you to use code that is licensed under the GPL! Find a replacement, or write your own code and license it as you see fit. But don't start whining when someone chooses a lisence you personally don't happen to like!
Slashdot Mirror
So, you want to develop an in-house software, right (that's what I assume the "internally" means)? In that case you do NOT have to buy Qt-license! The GPL says that code that is not released to the public (in other words: in-house software) do not have to have it's code released!
If I wrote a Qt/KDE-app that me and my GF would be using, I would have NO obligation to release the source! Likewise, if you write a piece of software that will be used internally at your company, you do NOT have to release the source! Therefore you can use the GPL'ed Qt just fine!
The Qt-toolkit used by the KDE-project is 100% free software. It is dual-licensed either under the QPL or GPL. Additionally you can buy a commercial-license as well.
So, Windows XP is "quite stable and secure" only if you use some additional tools? Wouldn't that mean that XP is not secure by itself, only if you beef it up with virus-scanners and the like it would be considered secure?
Then use a different toolkit! It's not like it's forced down your throat. And if you can't afford the license, then you should really re-examine your decision to write software for profit.
There are? I use use Qt/KDE-apps and I think they kick ass. Of course there are good GTK+-apps, but there are also good Qt-apps. Your personal opinion is not a fact. It's just that: an opinion.
Well good for you
No, you want software that you could use for free to write software for your own personal gain. Like I said, I have zero sympathy toardds freeloaders like you.
Then what's the deal with all those viruses?
Like I said elsewhere: freeloaders are not supported. I have zero sympathy for people who want to take the hard work of others, use it for their own gain, and not contribute one damn thing back. But the fact that you have to pay for Qt in order to write closed-source apps doesn't seem to be scaring companies away. It seems to me that there are more commercial Qt-apps than there are commercial GTK+-apps. Maybe it just really is worth the money?
Yes I can say it is free software (both as in speech and in beer). It uses THE license used by the Free Software Foundation, what more do you want??
So say it's "not free" is simply wrong.
It's not just "GPL-compatible" it IS licensed under the very same GPL we all know and love!
Freeloaders are not supported. Either you pay with your code, or with your money. And it seems that there are lots and lots of people/companies who think that Qt is well worth the money (it's not THAT much!), so I fail to see the problem here.
So you can't wait for 10-15 seconds it takes to get to the GUI? What are you doing with your computer if you are in a such a hurry?
It seems from your post that your Windows-machine and your Linux-machine doesn't have identical hardware, so you are comparing Apples to Oranges.
From my experiance, it takes about the same time to get to my Linux-desktop than it does to get to Windows-desktop. Of course, after reaching the desktop, Windows still loads services and add-on software, so it's not yet usable. And while running, my Linux-desktop is faster than the Windows-desktop.
Are you following me around or something??
KDE is absolutely, positively 100% free software as defined by the FSF/GNU.
So, your desktop-usage consists mostly of starting, restarting, restasting and restarting you GUI over and over again? You can't wait for few seconds for the GUI to start?
To each on his own I guess...
Of course one shouldn't arrest people based solely on the way they look. But quite often crimilans and thugs do have a certain look to them.
If you start following someone (not merely walking in to same direction) in an otherwise empty street, the person in front of you might start to think that you are about to rob him. And why would you be following him in the first place?
Uh-huh. And I'm the Queen of the Jungle and I have 7 pairs of boobs.
IIRC they looked like criminals. They started walking after him. When he tried running away from them, they started running as well, trying to catch him.
What do you suggest they were planning to do? Give him some flowers?
AFAIK the default desktop in Mandrake is KDE. Hell, Mandrake was basically Red Hat + KDE at first. SUSE is still KDE-centric. Will they switch to GNOME? Maybe, but we have to wait and see. So far they haven't indicated that they will. Yes, they have improved their GNOME-support, but that hasn't been at the expence of KDE.
Yes I was serious when I asked about other GNOME-distros. But it all got buried beneath the other stuff (are Lindows etc. widely used or not). And besides, it would be more or less useless to just post a message saying "thank you, I guess I missed that distro in my list".
You basically said that "Yeah, but nobody uses those distros!". I merely pointed out that yes, they are in fact used, quite widely as well. Just because you don't happen to use them, or you don't know of anyone who uses them, it does not mean that no-one uses them. The distros you mentioned are concentrated either geographically (Conectiva) or by target-market (Lindows etc.). If you don't happen to be in the right place or in the right target-market, it's no wonder that you don't see them being used.
I fail to see how you could think that I took your comment as a "personal attack". Was it because I wrote "you" with all caps?
Conectiva is the leading distro in Brazil and I beliave in entire South-America. Lindows and the others are propably not in the same target-market you happen to be in (same can be said for Conectiva).
Just because YOU don't happen to know anyone who uses those distros, doesn't mean that they are not used. Hell, I don't know anyone who uses Red Hat, so I guess Red Hat is not videly used, eh?
Well, there's SUSE, Mandrake, Lindows, Xandros, Lycoris, Conectiva and several others that use KDE as their default. Distros that use GNOME as default are Red Hat/Fedora and UserLinux (are there others?). Rest are desktop-agnostic.
So it would seem that there are more distros useing KDE as default than there are distros using GNOME as default.
It never occured to you that space-exploration might (and would) indirectly help to solve the problem on Earth? Thanks to space-exploration, we could invent better methods at generating electricity. We could invent better recycling-methods. We could invent new and stronger alloys that could be used in lots of different things.
The possibilities are endless. People like you suffer from extreme case of short-sightedness.
But according to the reply I got, if I want to change the position of the toolbar it either means that the default configuration is flawed and should be fixed, or there's a bug. So which one is it?
Duh, because not all people think and behave identically. Desktop that was configurated accodring to your needs and wants might not be suitable for me for example. Some of use lots and lots of virtual desktop, some use just one. Others want their toolbar vertically, others want it horizontally. There is no "correct" way to set things like that up, we all bave personal needs.
If I want something to look or behave differently does not mean that it's a "bug". There might not be anything wrong with the default configuration as such. It might just be designed by someone who works differently than I do. You can't create an UI that satisfies everyone.
If the toolbar is at the bottom of the screen by default, and I want it at the top of the screen instead, is that a "bug"? Does that mean that the default settings are somehow flawed? How do you suppose that "bug" should be fixed? Should the toolbar be at the top of the screen by default just because I say so? What about all those people who want the toolbar at the bottom of the screen? You can't fix that "bug", what you can do is to make is so that the user can decide for himself.
It is impossible to create a default configuration that would fit each and every user perfectly. So what you can do is either to make the UI tweakable or try to force the users to adapt themselves around the UI, instead of vice-versa. And I don't like that latter option.
What? Force-feeding certain things since "this is the right way to do it! If you disagree, you must be a moron! What we say is the correct thing to do, IS the correct thing to do!"? OK, I'm exaggarating a bit there
I can understand why some people use GNOME and I didn't say it's worse. I said why it's better for me. And I commented on few things listed as GNOME's strenths, since IMO they aren't really "strenghts", since KDE has them as well.
And what will you do in the case, when you want to change some option in GNOME, only to find out that you can't do it? Unless you use GConf, a system with similar UI to Windows Registry? How is that "easier to use"?
GNOME gives you the possibility to change some basic-settings via a GUI. KDE does that as well, and in addition to that, you can also change some advanced settings via GUI as well. But if you want to mess with only the few basic options, you can do that just fine. And once you know where to find those settings in question, it's not actually rocket-science to change them in the future. Just because there are options to change god knows what, does not mean that you are required to go anywhere near those particular options.
I remember when I started using the KDE Control Center. Yes, there are lots of options there. It took me maybe 15 minutes to get a good idea on where to find what. After that, it was not a problem at all. And in most cases, running KPersonaliser is enough to get the basic-settings adjusted to your liking.
You talk about "zillions of buttons" and "clutter". You can trim that clutter out. Don't like the buttons in the toolbar? remove them! Don't like the toolbar at all? Get rid of it!
What people complain about when it comes to KDE is the _default settings_. But few seem to know that those settings can be easily adjusted to your liking (and quite easily too, thanks to those all too often despised configuration-options). By default GNOME has less busy UI than KDE does. But KDE can be toned down just as well. The options in KDE don't prevent you from getting things done AT ALL. I mean, how often do we REALLY tweak the settings? Not very often. True, we might change the wallpaper now and then or something, but it doesn't take a rocket-scientist to do that (even on KDE!).
KDE has HIG as well
KDE also has (if you wan to) OS 9 style menu. UI is a matter of the taste, but it's alot easier for KDE to tweak their UI than it is for GNOME to create a background-technology (Kparts, KIO, DCOP etc.) that rivals that of KDE.
This I don't understand. I mean, one of the most common complaints about KDE is "it has too many options!". Well, how is GNOME better? It has less options, fine. But you could achieve that in KDE as well: just don't change the options! Just because KDE gives you the tools to change everything in the UI does not mean that you should spend all your time tweaking those options. GNOME gives you less control (apart from GConf), and people somehow assume that's "better and easier to use", when you could achieve the same just fine in KDE: limit yourself to just few options. There, less options to tweak, just as easy.
And is GConf REALLY that much easier than KDE's Control Center? I seriously doubt it.
That said, I don't really have any problems navigating the KDE Control Center (it does have search-functionality). For starters: I have gotten used to it. Secondly, I don't spend all my time tweaking options, so how easy (or difficult) it is to change some options is more or less irrevelevant to me.
Well, Qt/KDE has all the apps I need and want
And that code could be used to build an abusive monopoly.
He who writes the code, gets to choose the license. If someone chooses GPL, I fail to see how that is YOUR problem. While in some way you might consider BSD-license to be "more free", it can be easily abused. GPL prevents that, and there are lots and lots of developers who don't want to see their code being abused.
If you are afraid that GPL will "pollute" your code, then don't use GPL'ed code! It really couldn't be any simpler! No-one is forcing you to use code that is licensed under the GPL! Find a replacement, or write your own code and license it as you see fit. But don't start whining when someone chooses a lisence you personally don't happen to like!