"This is yet another breach of our IP! Our fine researcher came up with this technology over 10 years ago, we have just ket it hidden for all this time. Unfortunately we wrote the patent-applications with invisible ninja-ink and they are being kept in a vault in our Fortress of Doom (tm), so we can't show them to anyone.
We expect IBM to pay us 5 billion dollars plus 4 x $699 for each CPU sold"
TT expects the GNU/Linux environment to be given to them for free
Maybe, and in return they give Linux-community a free (both as in speech and as in beer) toolkit. Again, where is the problem?
and they expect to charge money to all commercial (closed source) software developers who use their toolkit to target the desktop environment which they didn't develop.
They didn't develop the desktop-environment, but they did develop the toolkit those developers are using. Why shouldn't they charge for it? And, like I said, if you write free software, you get the toolkit for free. if you want to profit from it, you have to pay.
I'd rather see Linux standardize on a Gnome environment
Ah, a Gnome-user. That explains your whining. You know what, you keep on developing for Gnome/GTK, no-one is forcing you to use Qt/KDE.
That would leave TT in a profitable situation, but without enough power over commercial desktop development to be able to abuse it.
What makes you think that they would abuse it, whereas Gnome/Gtk-guys would not? I mean, Qt is under the GPL, it's pretty difficult to abuse it. If TT starts to act like an ass, last GPL'ed version of Qt is re-licensed under the BSD-license.
And if you are serious about commercial developement, the price of Qt should not be a problem. If you cant earn 2000$ from your software, what's the point of trying to sell it for profit? Obviously there's no money to be made there.
TT has treated the community with great care. They have bent over backwards to satisfy the complainers. Yet there are still people out there who whine that "Waaah! TT is EEEEEVIL! They give me a GPL'ed toolkit and I don't like it! They must satisfy my every whim and I and I alone can write software for profit, the evil trolls from Norway do not have that right!"
This is such bizzare logic. TT has thrown a toll to write commercial software for an open platform. The platform without TT was open. TT is writing a library, not applications. TT is denying the ability to write all (closed) commercial software for KDE without going through them.
What's stopping you from using some other toolkit for your app? Gtk-apps work just fine in KDE. And TT is doing the exact same thing you want to do: to make money. What gives you the right to write software for profit, but TT can't do the same? To me that smells like hypocrisy.
And if you are serious about your proprietary software, the cost of Qt should not be a problem. But I fail to see what right do you have to profit from the work of TT. TT encourages you to write free software. If you choose not to do so, you have to pay them. That is, like I said, fair.
Whether or not you perceive it as a problem, it certainly represents a different set of freedoms when developing under KDE than when developing under the rest of Linux.
Then develop for Gnome and stop your whining. Problem solved. Nobody is forcing you to develop for KDE or use Qt for that matter.
I agree with you in so far as to say that if you believe in strict open-source development, and don't care about commercial acceptance, then yes, it's not a big deal.
Now I'm not a big and important software-developer, but it seems to me that commercial software is usually written by companies. And companies can easily afford the license of Qt. If they can't, I would seriously question their viability.
Tell me one good reason why TT should provide you with tools that you could exploit for profit without giving them a dime? that would basically kill their business, and it might kill Qt as well. To me, your desire to exploit work of others for free sounds extremely selfish. You want free tools, yet you don't want to give anything back. With Qt you get what's coming to you. You write free software, you get Qt for free. You write proprietary, commercial software, you have to pay. Like I said, I REALLY fail to see the problem here.
Are you so moronic that you can't comprehend the fact that Canopy and SCO combined own a bit over 5% of TT? That means that about 95% of TT is NOT owned by Canopy/SCO. Majority of TT is owned by TT-employees.
Not only are CANOPY SCO's owners, but own Trolltech and LinuxNetwrox as well.
Get your facts straight before opening your big mouth. Canopy/SCO owns a bit over 5% of Trolltech. Now, in case you don't know, that means that about 95% of Trolltech is NOT owned by Canopy/SCO! Majority of Trolltech is owned by the employees of the company.
The absolute success of KDE means that Troll tech will have a monopoly over commercial entrance to the Linux Desktop. Given that, why should anyone want KDE to become a standard desktop?
Because KDE is superior to the alternatives? And if you write free software, you don't need to pay one dime. I fail to see the problem. And if TT starts to abuse it's power, users would migrate to other toolkits.
Yes, I recognize that other toolkits can interact with the KDE environment, but if you need to use other toolkits or explain why Troll tech can exact a fee, why even support KDE as a standard desktop?
If you can't recoup the cost of Qt-license, then you should REALLY reconsider your desision to write closed, commercial software, since there obviously isn't that much demand for it.
It's not the money itself, it's the long and complex explanation as to why purchasing would have to be enaged to develop for a "free" software platform
If you write free software you don't have to pay. If you want to write closed software, you have to pay. I fail to see the problem. WHy should you get the right to write closed software but you want to deny TT the same right? If you use their tools for profit, you need to pay them, IMO that is fair.
Win32 doesn't even have this problem, and Gtk certainly doesn't have this problem.
Then use Win32 or your precious Gtk, I fail to see the problem.
What if I don't like either? Things like this should be licensed under LGPL or a BSD-style license, or you just shouldn't bother. Say I write GPL cross-platform applications, but what if I wanted to pull my own dual licensing scheme and sell it as commercial product with some closed source enhancements? I can't do this with QT without paying Trolltech. Basically Trolltech are preventing people making money of QT software unless they receive their dividend. This is why Sun can't use QT in OpenOffice/StarOffice and it's also why Ximian can't and doesn't use QT.
I'm really sick and tired of the people who whine about Trolltech, Qt and it's license! Basically they are insisting that TT must provide them with tools for free so they could write closed software for profit. What they are saying is a perfect example of "Do as I say, not as I do!". Those supporters of free software whine when company offers a toolkit that is not only free (as in speech) but it also encourages them to write free software as well. They preach about free software, but they stop preaching when it starts to be about their own software-developement. They demand everyone writes free software but they want to write closed software themselves. Hypocrits!
It's tough to pitch free software when the first thing management sees is a $2000/developer price tag with no guarantee that it will remain under that price or scheme in the future.
To my knowledge, price of Qt is not that high when compared to alternatives. And are there any guarantees that the price of other toolkits remain stable? There aren't really.
Yeah, but SCO is claiming that Sequent's license didn't include transferral of license, that the various multiprocessor technologies were derivative works, and that SCO retained rights to all derivative works under that license.
If that's the case, why hasn't that scalability-code appeared in SCO's UNIX-offerings? They claim that Sequent/IBM contributed hi-end features to Linux that were really property of SCO. They claim that while their own flagship product lacks those very same features.
Didn't know this, but I actually never tried Gentoo, mostly because all my colleagues had to wait 48hours to get their distro compiled...
Well, you obviously haven't been using Gentoo. You can install it from different stages. Stage 1 means that EVERYTHING is compiled and optimized for you system. Glibc, GCC etc. Stage 3 means that the base system is not compiled/optimized but the apps are. Stage 2 is between those two. And with 1.4 you get GRP (Gentoo Reference Platform) where you can install precompiled binaries of large apps (Xfree, KDE, Gnome etc.).
Whining about compiling is really pointless. If you dislike compiling, then obviously Gentoo is not for you. And no-one is forcing you to run it. But, IMO, the whining about the compile-times is really overblown. I have installed Gentoo from stage 1 on a 233Mhz laptop, and it went just fine. I just left it compiling for the night or while I went to work. I lost VERY LITTLE productive time waiting for the compiles to finish (of course, I could have used the computer while it compiles. you are not required to stay away from the computer when it compiles).
As to security... I see no problems with Gentoos security track-record.
I guess the Gentoo-ers are mostly former SuSe-ists or RedHat-ters
Uh, not really. Sure, there are former SuSE, RH, Slackware, LFS etc. etc. users, but large part are ex-Debianists. Case in point: link. You can "meet" some nice arrogant Debianists in that discussion.
First, Linux is way more difficult to install than Windows XP.
I call BS on that one. Sure there are distros that are more difficulkt to install (like Debian and Gentoo), but there are other that are dead easy to install (SuSE for example).
Typical SuSE-installation:
-Insert DVD -Go through the Wizard, set up your system -Select software to install -Wait for the software to be installed -Done
It takes about 20 minutes, and I have fully functional OS ready to be used.
Now, the average W2K-install: -Insert CD -Go through the menus, set up your system -Select MS-software to install -Wait for the MS-software to be installed -Boot in to VGA-windows -Install drivers for your devices (reboot, reboot, reboot) -Install all the non-MS software you will be using -Done
Depending on the number of apps, the installation can take something like 1-2 hours.
MS limits competition when they bundle WMP and other apps to their OS. Now, if you are going to say "No they don't! You can still download other software!". If MS does not gain market-share or get any kind of advantage from bundling their software, then why do they go through all the trouble and bundle them anyway? Obviously, they are not doing it because they are nice, they do it to get some kind of advantage.
Yes, you can download other software, but the 90% of user that are your verage Joe Sixpack-type will think "Why go through the trouble of downloading and installing software when I already have the needed software right here?". And he will happily use IE and WMP. And when he does that, the MS-monopoly gets that much stronger.
If Linux becomes the dominant OS, there's nothing stopping you (or anyone else) creating your own Linux-distro. If Linux became a monopoly, there would not be one big company controlling it all, there would be several companies offerin their version of Linux.
Competition works in Linux. Take Mandrake for example. Guys behind Mandrake liked Red Hat and KDE, but RH focused on Gnome. So they forked RH and added improved KDE-support. There was nothing RH could do to stop them.
ANd I have a feeling that Linux-users do not like monopolies. If one distro started getting too powerful, alot of user would move to some other distro.
Ah the traditional pro-USE whine. "We helped you over 50 years ago! Don't you ever forget that!". Well, without the help from the French, you would still be a British colony;).
He never saw any GPL'ed code? how does he know that? I mean, he propably doesn't know all the GPL-code there is and couldn't tell if some piece of code came from GPL'ed software or not. OR can he just look at the code and say that "Of yes, this code is from the Linux Kernel VM-subsystem! Those bastards!". And I guess MS wouldn't put big comments around the code "THIS CODE HERE IS FRON GPL'ed SOFTWARE! DON'T TELL ANYONE!"
When will we see REAL support for Linux on the desktop? The Kernel is ready, the desktops are ready, the distros are ready, we have tons of apps. Only thing missing is real support from the OEM's. Sure, they support Linux on the servers, but few offer Linux-desktops. And those who do have very limited selection and they are hidden deep deep. No OEM pushes Linux on the desktop, not even IBM.
Do you see any change occurring in this space? At what pace can we hope to have some REAL support for the Linux-desktop? I dream for the day when Linux will be the default OS OEM's offer with Windows being the optional extra.
Slashdot Mirror
"This is yet another breach of our IP! Our fine researcher came up with this technology over 10 years ago, we have just ket it hidden for all this time. Unfortunately we wrote the patent-applications with invisible ninja-ink and they are being kept in a vault in our Fortress of Doom (tm), so we can't show them to anyone.
We expect IBM to pay us 5 billion dollars plus 4 x $699 for each CPU sold"
Maybe, and in return they give Linux-community a free (both as in speech and as in beer) toolkit. Again, where is the problem?
They didn't develop the desktop-environment, but they did develop the toolkit those developers are using. Why shouldn't they charge for it? And, like I said, if you write free software, you get the toolkit for free. if you want to profit from it, you have to pay.
Ah, a Gnome-user. That explains your whining. You know what, you keep on developing for Gnome/GTK, no-one is forcing you to use Qt/KDE.
What makes you think that they would abuse it, whereas Gnome/Gtk-guys would not? I mean, Qt is under the GPL, it's pretty difficult to abuse it. If TT starts to act like an ass, last GPL'ed version of Qt is re-licensed under the BSD-license.
And if you are serious about commercial developement, the price of Qt should not be a problem. If you cant earn 2000$ from your software, what's the point of trying to sell it for profit? Obviously there's no money to be made there.
TT has treated the community with great care. They have bent over backwards to satisfy the complainers. Yet there are still people out there who whine that "Waaah! TT is EEEEEVIL! They give me a GPL'ed toolkit and I don't like it! They must satisfy my every whim and I and I alone can write software for profit, the evil trolls from Norway do not have that right!"
Cry me a river.
Well, I do see one problem. I see someone who expects others to give him the tools for free while he himself gives nothing in return.
What's stopping you from using some other toolkit for your app? Gtk-apps work just fine in KDE. And TT is doing the exact same thing you want to do: to make money. What gives you the right to write software for profit, but TT can't do the same? To me that smells like hypocrisy.
And if you are serious about your proprietary software, the cost of Qt should not be a problem. But I fail to see what right do you have to profit from the work of TT. TT encourages you to write free software. If you choose not to do so, you have to pay them. That is, like I said, fair.
Then develop for Gnome and stop your whining. Problem solved. Nobody is forcing you to develop for KDE or use Qt for that matter.
Now I'm not a big and important software-developer, but it seems to me that commercial software is usually written by companies. And companies can easily afford the license of Qt. If they can't, I would seriously question their viability.
Tell me one good reason why TT should provide you with tools that you could exploit for profit without giving them a dime? that would basically kill their business, and it might kill Qt as well. To me, your desire to exploit work of others for free sounds extremely selfish. You want free tools, yet you don't want to give anything back. With Qt you get what's coming to you. You write free software, you get Qt for free. You write proprietary, commercial software, you have to pay. Like I said, I REALLY fail to see the problem here.
they might not be able to do it. I mean, how exactly are they going to force Canopy/SCO to sell their shares if they are unwilling to sell?
Are you so moronic that you can't comprehend the fact that Canopy and SCO combined own a bit over 5% of TT? That means that about 95% of TT is NOT owned by Canopy/SCO. Majority of TT is owned by TT-employees.
Get your facts straight before opening your big mouth. Canopy/SCO owns a bit over 5% of Trolltech. Now, in case you don't know, that means that about 95% of Trolltech is NOT owned by Canopy/SCO! Majority of Trolltech is owned by the employees of the company.
Because KDE is superior to the alternatives? And if you write free software, you don't need to pay one dime. I fail to see the problem. And if TT starts to abuse it's power, users would migrate to other toolkits.
If you can't recoup the cost of Qt-license, then you should REALLY reconsider your desision to write closed, commercial software, since there obviously isn't that much demand for it.
If you write free software you don't have to pay. If you want to write closed software, you have to pay. I fail to see the problem. WHy should you get the right to write closed software but you want to deny TT the same right? If you use their tools for profit, you need to pay them, IMO that is fair.
Then use Win32 or your precious Gtk, I fail to see the problem.
The DudeWell... that's just like... your opinion man
I'm really sick and tired of the people who whine about Trolltech, Qt and it's license! Basically they are insisting that TT must provide them with tools for free so they could write closed software for profit. What they are saying is a perfect example of "Do as I say, not as I do!". Those supporters of free software whine when company offers a toolkit that is not only free (as in speech) but it also encourages them to write free software as well. They preach about free software, but they stop preaching when it starts to be about their own software-developement. They demand everyone writes free software but they want to write closed software themselves. Hypocrits!
To my knowledge, price of Qt is not that high when compared to alternatives. And are there any guarantees that the price of other toolkits remain stable? There aren't really.
As a trusted Slashdot-personality I can help them with rounding up others to toil in their CPU-fabs.
If that's the case, why hasn't that scalability-code appeared in SCO's UNIX-offerings? They claim that Sequent/IBM contributed hi-end features to Linux that were really property of SCO. They claim that while their own flagship product lacks those very same features.
Santa lives in Finland, so there's nothing to worry about :)
Well, you obviously haven't been using Gentoo. You can install it from different stages. Stage 1 means that EVERYTHING is compiled and optimized for you system. Glibc, GCC etc. Stage 3 means that the base system is not compiled/optimized but the apps are. Stage 2 is between those two. And with 1.4 you get GRP (Gentoo Reference Platform) where you can install precompiled binaries of large apps (Xfree, KDE, Gnome etc.).
Whining about compiling is really pointless. If you dislike compiling, then obviously Gentoo is not for you. And no-one is forcing you to run it. But, IMO, the whining about the compile-times is really overblown. I have installed Gentoo from stage 1 on a 233Mhz laptop, and it went just fine. I just left it compiling for the night or while I went to work. I lost VERY LITTLE productive time waiting for the compiles to finish (of course, I could have used the computer while it compiles. you are not required to stay away from the computer when it compiles).
As to security... I see no problems with Gentoos security track-record.
Uh, not really. Sure, there are former SuSE, RH, Slackware, LFS etc. etc. users, but large part are ex-Debianists. Case in point: link. You can "meet" some nice arrogant Debianists in that discussion.
I call BS on that one. Sure there are distros that are more difficulkt to install (like Debian and Gentoo), but there are other that are dead easy to install (SuSE for example).
Typical SuSE-installation:
-Insert DVD
-Go through the Wizard, set up your system
-Select software to install
-Wait for the software to be installed
-Done
It takes about 20 minutes, and I have fully functional OS ready to be used.
Now, the average W2K-install:
-Insert CD
-Go through the menus, set up your system
-Select MS-software to install
-Wait for the MS-software to be installed
-Boot in to VGA-windows
-Install drivers for your devices (reboot, reboot, reboot)
-Install all the non-MS software you will be using
-Done
Depending on the number of apps, the installation can take something like 1-2 hours.
No shit Sherlock!
MS limits competition when they bundle WMP and other apps to their OS. Now, if you are going to say "No they don't! You can still download other software!". If MS does not gain market-share or get any kind of advantage from bundling their software, then why do they go through all the trouble and bundle them anyway? Obviously, they are not doing it because they are nice, they do it to get some kind of advantage.
Yes, you can download other software, but the 90% of user that are your verage Joe Sixpack-type will think "Why go through the trouble of downloading and installing software when I already have the needed software right here?". And he will happily use IE and WMP. And when he does that, the MS-monopoly gets that much stronger.
If Linux becomes the dominant OS, there's nothing stopping you (or anyone else) creating your own Linux-distro. If Linux became a monopoly, there would not be one big company controlling it all, there would be several companies offerin their version of Linux.
Competition works in Linux. Take Mandrake for example. Guys behind Mandrake liked Red Hat and KDE, but RH focused on Gnome. So they forked RH and added improved KDE-support. There was nothing RH could do to stop them.
ANd I have a feeling that Linux-users do not like monopolies. If one distro started getting too powerful, alot of user would move to some other distro.
Ah the traditional pro-USE whine. "We helped you over 50 years ago! Don't you ever forget that!". Well, without the help from the French, you would still be a British colony ;).
This may come as a shock to you, but Intel-CPU's generate as much (if not more) heat as AMD-CPU's do.
He never saw any GPL'ed code? how does he know that? I mean, he propably doesn't know all the GPL-code there is and couldn't tell if some piece of code came from GPL'ed software or not. OR can he just look at the code and say that "Of yes, this code is from the Linux Kernel VM-subsystem! Those bastards!". And I guess MS wouldn't put big comments around the code "THIS CODE HERE IS FRON GPL'ed SOFTWARE! DON'T TELL ANYONE!"
When will we see REAL support for Linux on the desktop? The Kernel is ready, the desktops are ready, the distros are ready, we have tons of apps. Only thing missing is real support from the OEM's. Sure, they support Linux on the servers, but few offer Linux-desktops. And those who do have very limited selection and they are hidden deep deep. No OEM pushes Linux on the desktop, not even IBM.
Do you see any change occurring in this space? At what pace can we hope to have some REAL support for the Linux-desktop? I dream for the day when Linux will be the default OS OEM's offer with Windows being the optional extra.
Does anyone have any info on this?