So he should do extra work because some other assholes can't keep their pc secure ?
I agree with him.
The irritating thing about admins and firewalls is that it gives them power. A lot of these "admins" cannot handle it, so why create a situation to give them even more power ?
ISP's do enough damage to the internet on their own, let's not compound the problem.
Oh and another issue : I assume you are going to pay for all those extra support calls too ?
Please do your homework. There are very certainly C bindings for Qt, I've heard someone say on IRC, he liked the C bindings for Qt a lot better than the native Gtk stuff.
Yup, we're mad at Bruce Perens because of the way the choice was made. There was not any sort of democratic decision, and he kept on inventing new arguments, which we kept on rebuffing ( the licensing argument seems to be his final argument, but we have also rebuffed it, as you can read below ).
Another argument is that making KDE the default desktop does not in any way force 3rd party developers to use Qt if they don't want to. Gtk apps run perfectly on KDE desktops.
"Gtk is _now_ equal to Qt, important issue will be fixed in 2.6". ( freely quoted, emphasis mine )
Small companies can certainly pay for Qt. I know a lot of people ( lots of them KDE developers ) who own small companies that develop exclusively Qt based software.
For commercial developers, the money they save through the quality of Qt ( develop faster == pay less developers ) is easily worth the license ( which amounts to one tenth of the price of a single developer ).
Why would a Linux distro have to worry about its toolkit not being free on Windows ?
And about you calling TT the devil, that's just ridiculous. They have made available a great toolkit under the GPL, and have committed voluntarily to continue to do so indefinitely. This deserves a lot of respect.
It matters to the KDE folk, because we ( a group of some twenty enthusiast KDE and Debian developers ) were intending to work together with UL on making UserLinux a KDE based enterprise distro that would easily beat other available offers. Bruce's decision stopped this plan, but we are continuing the effort standalone now.
Furthermore, the licensing argument is bogus, read why below.
That is the sales folk of TrollTech talking. It is arguably as wrong as MySQL's interpretation of the GPL.
If your use of Qt is allowed under the GPL, you don't need a license. TrollTech cannot in any way limit the rights they have already given you under the GPL.
Try to find a commercial Gtk app. After googling, you'll perhaps find some from Ximian ( which can arguably be ruled out ), and perhaps a few more. Now try to find a commercial Qt app. You'll find hundreds ( including high-profile ones from Adobe and others ).
This means that commercial developers are willing to pay for a quality toolkit, as much so on Linux as on other OSs. Free software folk needn't worry either, as Qt on X is free as in both.
Hi,
You should get your facts straight. First of all, there is no Qt license per installed user. The license is per developer using Qt per year.
Secondly, if you search google, you'll find a hell of a lot more commercial Qt apps than commercial Gtk apps. This must mean that companies looking for a toolkit for their apps don't care about the money they'll have to pay. They are indeed willing and able to pay for quality software.
Third, the Qt license encourages free software development. If companies want to keep their code proprietary, and sell their software, I don't see why they wouldn't be able to pay for that, especially given the quality of the Qt toolkit.
Have you ever actually seen a commercial Gtk app ? Because the world abounds with commercial Qt apps, like you can see here: http://www.trolltech.com/success/index.html
Slashdot Mirror
So he should do extra work because some other assholes can't keep their pc secure ? I agree with him. The irritating thing about admins and firewalls is that it gives them power. A lot of these "admins" cannot handle it, so why create a situation to give them even more power ? ISP's do enough damage to the internet on their own, let's not compound the problem. Oh and another issue : I assume you are going to pay for all those extra support calls too ?
Please do your homework. There are very certainly C bindings for Qt, I've heard someone say on IRC, he liked the C bindings for Qt a lot better than the native Gtk stuff.
Yup, we're mad at Bruce Perens because of the way the choice was made. There was not any sort of democratic decision, and he kept on inventing new arguments, which we kept on rebuffing ( the licensing argument seems to be his final argument, but we have also rebuffed it, as you can read below ).
Another argument is that making KDE the default desktop does not in any way force 3rd party developers to use Qt if they don't want to. Gtk apps run perfectly on KDE desktops.
"Gtk is _now_ equal to Qt, important issue will be fixed in 2.6". ( freely quoted, emphasis mine ) Small companies can certainly pay for Qt. I know a lot of people ( lots of them KDE developers ) who own small companies that develop exclusively Qt based software. For commercial developers, the money they save through the quality of Qt ( develop faster == pay less developers ) is easily worth the license ( which amounts to one tenth of the price of a single developer ).
Why would a Linux distro have to worry about its toolkit not being free on Windows ? And about you calling TT the devil, that's just ridiculous. They have made available a great toolkit under the GPL, and have committed voluntarily to continue to do so indefinitely. This deserves a lot of respect.
As I said, a few others. Now compare that to the number of commercial Qt apps.
It matters to the KDE folk, because we ( a group of some twenty enthusiast KDE and Debian developers ) were intending to work together with UL on making UserLinux a KDE based enterprise distro that would easily beat other available offers. Bruce's decision stopped this plan, but we are continuing the effort standalone now. Furthermore, the licensing argument is bogus, read why below.
That is the sales folk of TrollTech talking. It is arguably as wrong as MySQL's interpretation of the GPL. If your use of Qt is allowed under the GPL, you don't need a license. TrollTech cannot in any way limit the rights they have already given you under the GPL.
Try to find a commercial Gtk app. After googling, you'll perhaps find some from Ximian ( which can arguably be ruled out ), and perhaps a few more. Now try to find a commercial Qt app. You'll find hundreds ( including high-profile ones from Adobe and others ).
This means that commercial developers are willing to pay for a quality toolkit, as much so on Linux as on other OSs. Free software folk needn't worry either, as Qt on X is free as in both.
Hi, You should get your facts straight. First of all, there is no Qt license per installed user. The license is per developer using Qt per year. Secondly, if you search google, you'll find a hell of a lot more commercial Qt apps than commercial Gtk apps. This must mean that companies looking for a toolkit for their apps don't care about the money they'll have to pay. They are indeed willing and able to pay for quality software. Third, the Qt license encourages free software development. If companies want to keep their code proprietary, and sell their software, I don't see why they wouldn't be able to pay for that, especially given the quality of the Qt toolkit.
Have you ever actually seen a commercial Gtk app ? Because the world abounds with commercial Qt apps, like you can see here:l
http://www.trolltech.com/success/index.htm