Linked by Andrew Youll on Tue 26th Jul 2005 17:22 UTC, submitted by Ben Jao Ming
KDE A blog entry by Jure Repinc tells us about some of the new features in KDE 3.5 which according to this schedule isn't quite finished yet. Amongs other things, there will be a Storage Media Notification dialog and some more eye candy in Kicker.
Order by: Score:
Feeding off Gnome
by ckknight on Tue 26th Jul 2005 17:31 UTC
ckknight
Member since:
2005-07-06

It definitely does look like KDE is getting some of its inspiration from Gnome. Not that that's a bad thing, things are really shaping up and it looks like 3.5 is going to be a nice release.

Reply Score: 1

Autorun
by ma_d on Tue 26th Jul 2005 17:45 UTC
ma_d
Member since:
2005-06-29

I hope it's really easy to shut off. I know a lot of non-technical users like the behaviour but I've always found it obnoxious: It usually just slows me down from what I intended to do with the media I inserted.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Autorun
by W-Tarchalski on Wed 27th Jul 2005 11:49 UTC in reply to "Autorun"
W-Tarchalski Member since:
2005-07-18

Do you realy think it's difficult to select 'Do nothing' and the checkbox in the dialog, or are you just trolling?

Reply Score: 2

I thought KDE 4 was the next release...
by archiesteel on Tue 26th Jul 2005 17:45 UTC
archiesteel
Member since:
2005-07-02

I guess it's still another release away. In any case, version 3.4 was excellent, I can't wait for 3.5 to come out! The KDE desktop is maturing fast, to the point where it's now IMO a more powerful desktop than Windows XP, all while being user-friendly and flexible.

I guess it goes to show that the competition with GNOME is overall a good thing, as it pushes each of the competing *nix desktops to improve in terms of features, speed and usability.

Reply Score: 1

Re: Feeding off Gnome
by Anonymous on Tue 26th Jul 2005 17:55 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Funny, over at dot.kde.org KDE is being flamed for "coyping from MS Windows" this feature.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Re: Feeding off Gnome
by Anonymous on Tue 26th Jul 2005 17:56 UTC in reply to "Re: Feeding off Gnome"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I think he's referring to the Add Applet dialog, not the autorun dialog.

Reply Score: 0

v ...
by Anonymous on Tue 26th Jul 2005 17:57 UTC
v RE: ...
by Anonymous on Tue 26th Jul 2005 17:57 UTC in reply to "..."
RE[2]: ...
by Anonymous on Tue 26th Jul 2005 18:06 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

Add to Panel/Special Button/Desktop Access - in unmodified KDE it's per default on your panel.

Reply Score: 0

Re: Show Desktop for KDE
by Anonymous on Tue 26th Jul 2005 18:23 UTC in reply to "..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

Last time I tried kicker I wasn't abble to find a "Show Desktop" I use it a lot in GNOME and Windows, is there one?

It's not needed under KDE or Gnome, though it's easy to add under KDE.

* A better option: Use the desktop pager and select one of the other desktops. It looks like this;

http://www.kde.org/history/pics/kpager.png

By default, it is located near the middle of the Kicker bar;

http://www.kde.org/screenshots/images/3.4/snapshot27.png

* To turn it on (though it's just a waste of space!), right click on an empty area on Kicker and select it from the Add applet menu.

Reply Score: 0

Show Desktop
by Anonymous on Tue 26th Jul 2005 18:02 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

In the image:
http://photos22.flickr.com/28442763_a0a8f7531f_o.png
The second button.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Show Desktop
by Anonymous on Tue 26th Jul 2005 18:06 UTC in reply to "Show Desktop"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Hey thx.

it was so obvious.

Reply Score: 0

KDE 3.5
by Anonymous on Tue 26th Jul 2005 18:10 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Yep, it's looking good - would be nice for some different defaults though:

Disable the busy cursor
Disable taskbar notification
Set the number of desktops to 2 (as a basic default)
Disable the icon mouse-over effects
Disable the Animation of minimise and restore and most other "unnecessary" animations.....

Activate pre-loading by default (1 instance)
Start with an empty session.

Of course it's down to personal preference and you can easily change these after install - just would be nice for some slightly "lighter" "crisper" defaults though - often the "window-dressing" just seems to get in the way.

Reply Score: 0

RE: KDE 3.5
by Anonymous on Tue 26th Jul 2005 19:45 UTC in reply to "KDE 3.5"
Anonymous Member since:
---

> would be nice for some different defaults though:
> Disable taskbar notification

Why? Because GNOME now added it? ;-)

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous
Member since:
---

> I guess it's still another release away.

KDE4 development has already begun. However, not every KDE contributor is involved or interested in developing the core libraries and applications; KDE 3.5, therefore, is very much a release for the application developers (and lots of final polishing for the 3.x series, of course).

Reply Score: 1

Looking good
by Emil on Tue 26th Jul 2005 18:24 UTC
Emil
Member since:
2005-06-29

As always, KDE rocks. Hope Kubuntu gang will put it into nice .deb from for us, KDE lovers. :-)

Reply Score: 1

...
by Anonymous on Tue 26th Jul 2005 18:28 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Another Question:

How do you enabled double click on desktop icons and file manager instead of a single click?

Reply Score: 0

RE: ...
by Anonymous on Tue 26th Jul 2005 18:33 UTC in reply to "..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

KControl - Peripherals - Mouse - General tab

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: ...
by Anonymous on Tue 26th Jul 2005 18:35 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

KControl - Peripherals - Mouse - General tab

No wonder I wasn't able to find how.

Shouln'd be better in "Desktop Behavior" or something more accesible? just my opinion.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: ...
by unoengborg on Tue 26th Jul 2005 20:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
unoengborg Member since:
2005-07-06

Actually, I think that double click should be the default behavior. Not because that it is in any way better than single click, but because most users that come from windows will be surprised by this behavior.

After all, if sombody is switching to KDE from some other platform it is much more likely that he have a windows or Mac background than something that uses singleclick. Why unnecessarily surprise people?

Activating things on single click can also make users feel uneasy about activating things by mistake.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: ...
by Anonymous on Tue 26th Jul 2005 20:14 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

In my experience, single-click can be a pain when doing file-management. If I want to highlight a file or few (say, for deletion), my click opens them instead.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: ...
by Anonymous on Tue 26th Jul 2005 23:41 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

If I want to highlight a file or few (say, for deletion), my click opens them instead.

if you want to select more than one file you either draw a frame or use the Ctrl/Shift key. In both cases Konqueror doesn't open them.

The only case where you can accidently open a file is if you want to select only one. But if you want to delete it, there's no reason not to right-click the file. Or if you absolutely have to use the Del key to delete it you can press Ctrl while clicking on the file or draw a small frame around it.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: ...
by anda_skoa on Wed 27th Jul 2005 10:27 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
anda_skoa Member since:
2005-07-07

Actually, I think that double click should be the default behavior

Double click is the default behaviour for users who select Windows-like defaults on first login for exactly the reason you mentioned.

Other settings still allow to change the click behaviour during first startup configuration.

Reply Score: 1

Minipager
by GhePeU on Tue 26th Jul 2005 18:45 UTC
GhePeU
Member since:
2005-07-06

Minipager has received many improvements. It can show icons of applications, background can now show desktop wallpaper or it can be transparent. You can even drag and drop windows from one desktop to another.

This is interesting. This is one of my favourite features in both xfce4 and gnome, and I missed it when I was forced to use kde in my university's networking course.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: ...
by teprrr on Tue 26th Jul 2005 19:30 UTC
teprrr
Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, maybe you should post your suggestion to KDE bug tracker (http://bugs.kde.org) and/or kde-usability ml? I don't know if many KDE devs read osnews...

Reply Score: 1

RE: KDE 3.5
by teprrr on Tue 26th Jul 2005 19:33 UTC
teprrr
Member since:
2005-07-06

Maybe you should make these suggestions on kde-usability or kde-core-devel mailinglist? Anyways, I think those things changes depending on what you select from the first time wizard...

Reply Score: 1

v getting very close to Windows XP now
by pravda on Tue 26th Jul 2005 19:34 UTC
The 'this schedule' Link
by Anonymous on Tue 26th Jul 2005 19:47 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Makes me wonder if the submitter actually read what he linked. For sure it's not a schedule as its headline says because no schedule for KDE 3.5 exists yet.

Reply Score: 1

v Stop Gnome imposition
by Anonymous on Tue 26th Jul 2005 20:00 UTC
RE: Stop Gnome imposition
by Phil on Tue 26th Jul 2005 20:24 UTC in reply to "Stop Gnome imposition"
Phil Member since:
2005-07-06

It looks like this might become a theme...

There is no "Gnome imposition". At most, there is a gtk imposition, and I would expect almost everyone had them anyway (gimp, gaim, etc.)

And anyway, no one is stopping you using kde, xfce, wmaker, ion, whatever. Even if you have it installed, you can just, and listen carefully here: choose not to use it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Stop Gnome imposition
by amadeo on Tue 26th Jul 2005 20:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Stop Gnome imposition"
amadeo Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes, it is a GNOME imposition.

Everybody is keeping the tone down to avoid starting some opposition in the KDE community. But once the Gtk / Gnome libraries are in, and KDE is not, we will hear the "GNOME is the standard" chant, or "KDE lost".

And the reason is ridiculous: the use of Qt is not forced on anyone, as GTK is also available. Further desktop standards should be set in the freedesktop forum.

This is political, but disguised as a "technical" decision that does not make sense is not technical.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Stop Gnome imposition
by Phil on Tue 26th Jul 2005 21:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Stop Gnome imposition"
Phil Member since:
2005-07-06

This is political, but disguised as a "technical" decision that does not make sense is not technical.

No, it's an openly political decision. Qt is not licensed appropriately, and so it's not being included.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Stop Gnome imposition
by cm__ on Tue 26th Jul 2005 21:27 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Stop Gnome imposition"
cm__ Member since:
2005-07-07

> Qt is not licensed appropriately, and so it's not being included.

Yeah, but their standard that says it's inappropriate is ridiculous (the GPL is one of the most common OSS licenses and no one would force anyone to use Qt even if it was included).

This will lead to broad rejection of their complete work.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Stop Gnome imposition
by Anonymous on Tue 26th Jul 2005 23:12 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Stop Gnome imposition"
Anonymous Member since:
---

This is not true, although you probably don't realize it. If I want to make a derivative work of a desktop that is based on freedesktop.org specs and some component I wanted to change was based on QT, then I would be forced to buy a TrollTech license.

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: Stop Gnome imposition
by amadeo on Tue 26th Jul 2005 23:22 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Stop Gnome imposition"
amadeo Member since:
2005-07-06

This is not true, although you probably don't realize it. If I want to make a derivative work of a desktop that is based on freedesktop.org specs and some component I wanted to change was based on QT, then I would be forced to buy a TrollTech license.

Not true. GNOME desktop is mostly GPL too. Only the libraries are LGPL. The "desktop"(the applications) are already GPL, so you can't do that either with GNOME.

Also, if there is a freedesktop standard about something, and you code to follow that standard (so your app will work in all linux desktops), it does not matter if the desktop is GPL or LGPL based.

I give you an example: suppose that there is a panel applet standard, that is free. If the panel app that will display your proprietary applet is GPL or LGPL does not matter, because the GLP app is simply implementing this standard.

So stop the FUD.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Stop Gnome imposition
by Anonymous on Wed 27th Jul 2005 03:01 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Stop Gnome imposition"
Anonymous Member since:
---

This is not true, although you probably don't realize it. If I want to make a derivative work of a desktop that is based on freedesktop.org specs and some component I wanted to change was based on QT, then I would be forced to buy a TrollTech license. ...

...if and ONLY IF you wanted to turn that into a closed source program and TrollTech was the only copyright holder of the code you wanted to close.

If you wanted to close source non-TrollTech code, you would have to ask the copyright holders of that other code also. Just like it has always been with many other licences -- GPL or not.

If you intended to keep the code open, you would not have to ask any permission from anyone; they have already given it to you.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Stop Gnome imposition
by segedunum on Wed 27th Jul 2005 14:35 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Stop Gnome imposition"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

No, it's an openly political decision. Qt is not licensed appropriately, and so it's not being included.

Qt is not licensed appropriately under the GPL! Wow. I'd love to see them remove the Linux kernel from the LSB (*ROTFL*) or any other GPL'd software!

The politics over Gnome and GTK in all of this is absolutely hilarious. I'd like to remind people that making your own iddy biddy standards doesn't make anything widely used. It's been done in the Unix world before. Do you think all of the technology in Windows is standardised anywhere? No one cares what the standard stuff is if people aren't using it, and believe you me, people are using KDE and Qt ;-).

The LSB hasn't meant anything to anyone for a long time now, and certainly companies like Red Hat are happy not to do anything about it for obvious reasons.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Stop Gnome imposition
by Anonymous on Tue 26th Jul 2005 23:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Stop Gnome imposition"
Anonymous Member since:
---

freedesktop is quite open that the decision is based on licensing, and not technical merit. I like like the QT design in many ways more than I like the gtk design, but I thik freedesktop made the right decision. If this is important to you, all you have to do is convince TrollTech to open the license appropriately.
I have worked on a couple of small projects where I would have preferred to use QT, but the licensinis too expensive for small commercial projects. For big projects, the cost is probably easy to absorb, but not small ones. So, I appreciate the push for a desktop that is appropriate for all classes of users.

Reply Score: 0

Re: small projects
by Morty on Tue 26th Jul 2005 23:17 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Stop Gnome imposition"
Morty Member since:
2005-07-06

Those small commercial projects you are talking about, in wich you think the Qt licensinis are too expensive. Can you give some real world numbers or data on them. Like aproxamatly developmnet time, number of developers, which platforms, price of the finished produckt and number of units shipped? I'm curius to see what those limits are and which toolkits you used as replacement.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Stop Gnome imposition
by amadeo on Tue 26th Jul 2005 20:27 UTC in reply to "Stop Gnome imposition"
amadeo Member since:
2005-07-06

Including Qt does not force any developer to use it, especially if GTK is also available. It is different from other libraries you can't avoid.

It is logical to have a different licencing criteria for "optional" components, especially for the desktop.

If you don't allow Qt, then the stated goals are hypocritical:

quote:
* Full set of Gnome and/or KDE libraries

Goal for Desktop Working group

Provide at least 80% library coverage for at least 80% of D/T applications by the end of 06 (LSB 4.0)
/quote

It is impossible to reach 80% without KDE.

Reply Score: 3

Is that really the default theme?
by Phil on Tue 26th Jul 2005 20:21 UTC
Phil
Member since:
2005-07-06

The icons in particular look a lot more childish than I remember from my KDE days (3.2 ish), and the widget theme looks a little messy as well...

Reply Score: 1

Bad bad bad
by Ben Jao Ming on Tue 26th Jul 2005 20:46 UTC
Ben Jao Ming
Member since:
2005-07-26

..I forgot a T in 'amongs*t* !!! Man, I'm a fine first-time news poster... Anyways, the new KDE is gonna be so gr8. No doubt that the pace of KDE is hard to Kompete with. People say that new features are just thrown in.. but really, who cares? They're sorted and fixed in the next release, anyways. Let's get hands-on as soon as possible!

Now, if they'd just make some kind of nightly devel Suse RPM release...

Reply Score: 1

...
by Anonymous on Tue 26th Jul 2005 21:21 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

OK I've seen threats about GNOME get ruined by KDE trolls, but KDE threats ruined by KDE trolls ?

These proves my point, KDE trolls do more damage to KDE to GNOME, it is self destructing.

Reply Score: 2

v ...
by Anonymous on Tue 26th Jul 2005 21:33 UTC
RE: ...
by cm__ on Tue 26th Jul 2005 21:45 UTC in reply to "..."
cm__ Member since:
2005-07-07

> Try to understand something and stfu already,

Oh, how very courteous of you to try to start a discussion with an insult. You really discredited yourself.



> LSB is not about GPL software, it is about commercial
> software, Qt sells its commercial license.

Very Wrong:
"The goal of the LSB is to develop and promote a set of binary standards that will increase compatibility among Linux systems (and other similar systems), and enable software applications to run on any conforming system. In addition, the LSB will help coordinate efforts to recruit software vendors to port and write products for such systems."

Source: http://www.linuxbase.org/modules.php?name=FAQ&myfaq=yes&id_cat=1&ca...

My comments:
1. Don't confuse commercial with proprietary.
2. OSS has its place on this software platform and should by all means benefit from the increased binary compatibility. It does not make any sense to shut some of it out.


> Go and do something productive.

And the same to you.

Reply Score: 1

What LSB is about
by amadeo on Tue 26th Jul 2005 21:43 UTC
amadeo
Member since:
2005-07-06

LSB is about making the life of the developers (and ISV) easy.

Including Qt makes the life of the developers that use Qt easy. And if you don't want to pay the Trolls, use GTK.

Please give me one reason why Qt should not be included.

Reply Score: 2

RE: What LSB is about
by anda_skoa on Wed 27th Jul 2005 10:14 UTC in reply to "What LSB is about"
anda_skoa Member since:
2005-07-07

LSB is about making the life of the developers (and ISV) easy.

That was the inital goal.
They shifted to "make the live of ISVs cheaper"

Not being able to rely on common libs to be installed definitely doesn't make life easier.

Reply Score: 3

...
by Anonymous on Tue 26th Jul 2005 21:45 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Qt makes the life of the developers that use Qt easy.

How come? forcing you to use a GPL license in your projects if you cannot pay a $2000 license?

Yeah, that's a big help.

Reply Score: 0

RE: ...
by cm__ on Tue 26th Jul 2005 21:56 UTC in reply to "..."
cm__ Member since:
2005-07-07

> > Qt makes the life of the developers that use Qt easy.

> How come? forcing you to use a GPL license in your
> projects if you cannot pay a $2000 license?
>
> Yeah, that's a big help.

You should read more carefully. He's talking about developers who already use Qt. So either they already have their license or they're developing GPL software. The advantage would be better binary compatibility and easier distribution of packages.

The rest of the developers would not be affected by the standardised presence of the Qt libs. No problem, no one is forced to use it for their own software.


But it seems you're just trolling again. I should stop now and take your advice to do something more productive than to argue with you. And so should you.

Reply Score: 3

v ...
by Anonymous on Tue 26th Jul 2005 21:52 UTC
RE: ...
by cm__ on Tue 26th Jul 2005 22:00 UTC in reply to "..."
cm__ Member since:
2005-07-07

> the LSB will help coordinate efforts to recruit
> software vendors to port and write products for
> such systems."

> Read commercial Software, is not that hard to figure out.


Nice, you're quoting selectively. They're saying: "In addition, ...". The primary target is building a platform. And again, please don't mix up commercial and proprietary.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: ...
by cm__ on Tue 26th Jul 2005 22:13 UTC
cm__
Member since:
2005-07-07

> > the LSB will help coordinate efforts to recruit
> > software vendors to port and write products for
> such systems."

> Read commercial Software, is not that hard to figure out.


How does that statement exclude Free Software? Hint: It doesn't.

You don't have to believe me, just listen to the LSB team itself:

"Is the LSB focused only on developing commercial applications?

Definitely not. When the LSB environment is implemented on a wide range of platforms, all developers will reap the benefit of writing their application without having to handle any special cases for any particular platform. The only benefits which may be special to for-profit companies is that implementing the LSB Specification may increase customer comfort levels and thus sell more platforms and applications."

Source: http://www.linuxbase.org/modules.php?name=FAQ&myfaq=yes&id_cat=1&ca...

Reply Score: 1

v ...
by Anonymous on Tue 26th Jul 2005 22:31 UTC
RE: ...
by Morty on Tue 26th Jul 2005 22:51 UTC in reply to "..."
Morty Member since:
2005-07-06

I'm guessing you are talking about those customers of trolltech where over 95% are more than stisfied with Qt and would recomend it. They sure know how much trolltech sucks.

Reply Score: 1

KDE and Useability
by Anonymous on Tue 26th Jul 2005 22:48 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I thought KDE 3.5 was going to have a strong focus on useability. One thing an earlier posted showed was that the "K" menu icon was to be re-labelled "Applications." What has happened? Has this idea been dropped again.

What else can we expect in terms of new useability in this release?

Reply Score: 0

v ...
by Anonymous on Tue 26th Jul 2005 22:59 UTC
RE: ...
by Morty on Tue 26th Jul 2005 23:08 UTC in reply to "..."
Morty Member since:
2005-07-06

If you don't want to GPL your code and cant pay for a Qt license, then dont use Qt. NOBODY FORCES YOU TO USE Qt!

Got that!

Reply Score: 1

RE: ...
by Anonymous on Wed 27th Jul 2005 02:53 UTC in reply to "..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

I don't give a damn about those customers, they sell COMERCIAL APPLICATIONS not GPL, THEY HAD TO PAY A LICENSE TO AVOID GPL THERE CODE.

As someone has already pointed out; commercial and GPL are not incompatable. Red Hat sells commercial software...that is 100% covered by the GPL and other FSF-approved licences.

QT is dual licenced GPL and commercial. This is an added option, not a restriction. If you want to keep your source closed, you have a few choices;

1. Don't distribute your binary beyond one entity; the company or entity that sponsored development. (Nobody who doesn't have the binary can force the source to be given away.)

2. Trust that the people you give the binary to will never ask nor want the source. (A risk, but not unreasonable in the right situation.)

3. Pay for the right to close your source (and TrollTech's) by paying TrollTech for the right to bind your closed source binary to the TrollTech code -- making it closed source.

If you are complaining that QT isn't LGPLed or BSD/X11/... licenced ... well, you can;

* Use another library ... say, isn't GTK already available?

* Write your own QT replacement and you can licence your own code as you see fit.

Bottom line: Don't gripe about TrollTech. They are being quite reasonable. You have many choices. Exercise them.

Reply Score: 0

RE: anti TT troll
by Anonymous on Tue 26th Jul 2005 23:02 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

"Spread the word of how much trolltech sucks, with that, you'll scare trolltech customers, trolltech will go bakrupsy and as a result, Qt won't have any license atachment, see? that's the solution."

Wow, because TT and its products suck so much, that you absolutly want to use them (the products, read Qt i mean)? And who is supposed to take on further development of Qt then, after TT is gone? The bunch of KDE-developers who are currently employed by TT? The other other KDE-devs who should be busy improving my favourite Desktop instead?

And on the other hand: you want to develop commercial SW, but you dont want TT to have the same right? explain why you are special?

Or better stop annoying people, and go back to where-ever you came from!!!

Reply Score: 0

...
by Anonymous on Tue 26th Jul 2005 23:08 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

And who is supposed to take on further development of Qt then, after TT is gone? The bunch of KDE-developers who are currently employed by TT? The other other KDE-devs who should be busy improving my favourite Desktop instead?

I don't give a damn who develope Qt, is not my problem,

And on the other hand: you want to develop commercial SW, but you dont want TT to have the same right? explain why you are special?

Because there license is discriminative with those WHO DON'T WANT TO GPL THEIR CODE and CAN'T PAY A Qt LICENSE.

Got that?

go to www.trolltech.com and complaine there.

Reply Score: 0

...
by Anonymous on Tue 26th Jul 2005 23:09 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

If you don't want to GPL your code and cant pay for a Qt license, then dont use Qt. NOBODY FORCES YOU TO USE Qt!

Then why included in LSB?

Reply Score: 0

RE: ...
by Morty on Tue 26th Jul 2005 23:19 UTC in reply to "..."
Morty Member since:
2005-07-06

Because the S in LSB means standard, and to define a standard that excludes the majority of Linux desktops are not much of a standard.

Reply Score: 1

Still waiting...
by amadeo on Tue 26th Jul 2005 23:15 UTC
amadeo
Member since:
2005-07-06

Including Qt makes the life of the developers that use Qt easy. And if you don't want to pay the Trolls, use GTK.

Please give me one reason why Qt should not be included.


Nobody came up with a good reason yet...
Maybe because there is no reason...

Reply Score: 2

v ...
by Anonymous on Tue 26th Jul 2005 23:21 UTC
...
by Anonymous on Tue 26th Jul 2005 23:23 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Because the S in LSB means standard, and to define a standard that excludes the majority of Linux desktops are not much of a standard.

It doens't exclude the mayority of linux distros, 95% distribute the GTK-Gnome libraries LSB is listing.

Reply Score: 0

RE: ...
by Morty on Tue 26th Jul 2005 23:47 UTC in reply to "..."
Morty Member since:
2005-07-06

Because the S in LSB means standard, and to define a standard that excludes the majority of Linux desktops are not much of a standard.

It doens't exclude the mayority of linux distros, 95% distribute the GTK-Gnome libraries LSB is listing.


But it still exludes the majority of Linux desktops and any ISV wanting to develop applications for it and releying on the LSB.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: ...
by Anonymous on Wed 27th Jul 2005 03:06 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

But it still exludes the majority of Linux desktops and any ISV wanting to develop applications for it and releying on the LSB.

Only if the ISV wants to close the source. Source that would include TrollTech copyright code. Source that may also contain non-TrollTech copyright code.

TrollTech has an OPTION to ALLOW you to close the source by paying a licence fee. You may not have that OPTION if you use other open source not copyrighted by TrollTech.

If you distribute binaries based on open source code, you are responsible to provide the source if asked by the person or company that requests that source. Modifications are not necessary for most licences; it kicks in at the time of distribution.

Reply Score: 0

...
by Anonymous on Tue 26th Jul 2005 23:25 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Not true. GNOME desktop is mostly GPL too. Only the libraries are LGPL. The "desktop"(the applications) are already GPL, so you can't do that either with GNOME.

The libraries listed in LSB are LGPL, Gnome GPL libraries were excluded, would you at least mind to read?, so you see? no GPL in LSB.

Reply Score: 0

RE: ...
by amadeo on Tue 26th Jul 2005 23:32 UTC in reply to "..."
amadeo Member since:
2005-07-06

The libraries listed in LSB are LGPL, Gnome GPL libraries were excluded, would you at least mind to read?, so you see? no GPL in LSB.

1)The guy was saing that ity was possible to "a derivative work of a desktop" with GNOME. I am just pointing out that this is not possible.
2)"no GPL in LSB": not true, Linux is GPL

The logical point of the LSB is to allow at least one "no strings attached platform". Great, there is GTK there. Why not include Qt?

Reply Score: 1

Please stop the nonsense
by amadeo on Tue 26th Jul 2005 23:26 UTC
amadeo
Member since:
2005-07-06

If you don't like Qt, don't use it. Why make the lifo of people who use it harder?

I agree that using Qt should not be required. But GTK will also be there so how could someone be hurt from qt being there?

Reply Score: 1

v ...
by Anonymous on Wed 27th Jul 2005 00:15 UTC
...
by Anonymous on Wed 27th Jul 2005 00:17 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

But it still exludes the majority of Linux desktops and any ISV wanting to develop applications for it and releying on the LSB.

I don't see how, most standar libraries will be there. So there's no excluding.

Reply Score: 0

...
by Anonymous on Wed 27th Jul 2005 00:18 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I agree that using Qt should not be required. But GTK will also be there so how could someone be hurt from qt being there?

Make exception of the LSB rules just to let Qt being part of the standar is not the answer, better go to the source of the problem www.trolltech.com and complaine there.

Reply Score: 0

@ the 200.66.3.---
by amadeo on Wed 27th Jul 2005 00:34 UTC
amadeo
Member since:
2005-07-06

Can we have a real conversation or are you just trolling around?

You know the answer if you go to a company and asks "Hey, why dont you give your work for free, So I can make money out of it!"

So going to trolltech is not the solution: the solution is asking the LSB to include Qt.

Here is a nice new licensing rule:

There must be at least one "no strings attached" toolkit or library, allowing proprietary developers the choice to develop their software without paing anyone.

Why is this rule not good for you?

Reply Score: 1

...
by Anonymous on Wed 27th Jul 2005 02:17 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Why is this rule not good for you

My friend, that's a smart question and I have the answer for it (w/o trolling)

Lets supose Qt is acepted in LSB, Qt is now a standar and certainly now that it is LSB complain I make my software using Qt, I pay 5 or 6 developer licenses and start working.

Now, lets supose my software if well acepted, the money invested in Qt licenses pays of, good.

Now, there are other software companies that want to interoperate with my programs, these companies would need to link their software (made with GTK because they didn't have enough money to pay for a Qt license and GPL their code is out of question), but there's a problem, since I made my programs with Qt, anyone who link my libraries (made with Qt) will have to pay for a Qt license, (because my applications are linked to Qt), and like they can't pay for it they get discriminated because they are poor and can't buy a Qt license, now very wellty software maker who bought Qt licenses won't have a problem at all, hence, that would be discrimination, not averyone will have the same tools, the same oportunities.

The solution is not in LSB hands, the solutions is in your hands, go to www.trolltech.com and explain the case and ask them if there's something they can do about those cases.

See, no trolling, those are the facts, think about it.

Reply Score: 0

...
by Anonymous on Wed 27th Jul 2005 03:06 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Pay for the right to close your source (and TrollTech's) by paying TrollTech for the right to bind your closed source binary to the TrollTech code -- making it closed source.

From all the nonsense points, this one was the more comic.

Why do I have pay for my rights to not right GPL software? not even the Microsoft monopoly force me to do it.

I'll tell you what, I won't pay for a right that belongs to me and no one else, TrollTech is no one to denie that rigth beyond Qt, Im seek of this kind of nonsense reply trying to justife Qt at any cost, are you a developer?, do you make a living of it? do you really understand the problem?

I think not.

* Write your own QT replacement and you can licence your own code as you see fit.

Another comic one, what do you think GTK is for?

I don't need to write a replacement.

Reply Score: 0

RE: ...
by Anonymous on Wed 27th Jul 2005 03:18 UTC in reply to "..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

Why do I have pay for my rights to not right GPL software?

ER...you're not the copyright holder?

not even the Microsoft monopoly force me to do it.

They are? Not on my planet.

I'll tell you what, I won't pay for a right that belongs to me and no one else, TrollTech is no one to denie that rigth beyond Qt, Im seek of this kind of nonsense reply trying to justife Qt at any cost, are you a developer?, do you make a living of it? do you really understand the problem?

I understand the last sentence. The rest is a bit garbled. Want to say it again, using the Earth language called English?


... what do you think GTK is for?

I don't need to write a replacement.


Now, you're just parroting me. Is your world in a strange dimensional state, or is it located outside this solar system?

Reply Score: 0

RE: ...
by Anonymous on Wed 27th Jul 2005 04:41 UTC in reply to "..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

Why do I have pay for my rights to not right GPL software?

You don't have to pay trolltech anything to write a non-GPLed app, you have to pay them if you want to use THEIR code (QT) in your non-GPLed app.

Reply Score: 0

RE: ...
by Anonymous on Wed 27th Jul 2005 07:02 UTC in reply to "..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

"* Write your own QT replacement and you can licence your own code as you see fit.

Another comic one, what do you think GTK is for?

I don't need to write a replacement."

Then use GTK, and stop whining about Qt! Sheesh, it's not that hard! You are NOT forced to use Qt in any shape or form. If you disagree with Qt's license, then DON'T USE IT! If you think GPL is OK, then go ahead and use Qt. If you don't want to use GPL, then pay for a commercial license (if you can't afford the commercial license, then you have no business writing closed-source commercial apps IMO. Time ro reconsider your career if you can't afford your tools with your work).

Really, this is not rocket-science. I really fail to see the point in your whining.

Reply Score: 0

RE: ...
by Wrawrat on Wed 27th Jul 2005 17:21 UTC in reply to "..."
Wrawrat Member since:
2005-06-30

Another comic one, what do you think GTK is for?

Comparing both toolkits in terms of performance, features and quality of the documentation/developer tools, I wouldn't exactly say they are in the same ballpark. QT does come with some strings attached, hence why it cannot be the base of a standard, but GTK still have a way to go before becoming a true replacement. Of course, that's my opinion.

I am surprised to see all that fuss over the LSB. Isn't the standard that requires RPM for package management?

Reply Score: 1

...
by Anonymous on Wed 27th Jul 2005 03:24 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

And blah blah blah,

Why don't you just got to LSB website and read the Qt faq of the reasons it wasn't acepted?

Or even better:

Go to www.trolltech.com and complaine there, I don't think you will get your goals here.

Reply Score: 0

@ Anonymous (IP: 200.66.3.---)
by Anonymous on Wed 27th Jul 2005 04:43 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Now, there are other software companies that want to interoperate with my programs, these companies would need to link their software (made with GTK because they didn't have enough money to pay for a Qt license and GPL their code is out of question), but there's a problem, since I made my programs with Qt, anyone who link my libraries (made with Qt) will have to pay for a Qt license, (because my applications are linked to Qt), and like they can't pay for it they get discriminated because they are poor and can't buy a Qt license, now very wellty software maker who bought Qt licenses won't have a problem at all, hence, that would be discrimination, not averyone will have the same tools, the same oportunities.

Not true. If you are developing an application, there is nothing that prevents a GTK app to interoperate with a Qt app. Sharing data has nothing to do with the GPL. You should inform yourself better.

That would be aproblem only if you where developing a library that wraps Qt for other developers. But it would be hypocritical to try to get Qt for free, wrap it and resell it...

So in the end, you have no argument at all.

Reply Score: 0

What is the problem?
by Anonymous on Wed 27th Jul 2005 06:02 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I fail to see what the problem is. The standard needs a standard desktop and toolkit; you cannot have two competing standards. This doesn't mean that KDE won't remain included in distros but it was high time there was a focus on the desktop. Now is the time to rally behind GNOME nad support it.

Reply Score: 0

RE: What is the problem?
by cm__ on Wed 27th Jul 2005 06:56 UTC in reply to "What is the problem?"
cm__ Member since:
2005-07-07

> Now is the time to rally behind GNOME nad support it.

You're kidding, right?

Reply Score: 1

European Patents
by Anonymous on Wed 27th Jul 2005 10:19 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

The blog shows a link to the European Patents Protest Page. Time to remove it??

Reply Score: 0

...
by Anonymous on Wed 27th Jul 2005 14:09 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Not true. If you are developing an application, there is nothing that prevents a GTK app to interoperate with a Qt app. Sharing data has nothing to do with the GPL. You should inform yourself better.

That would be aproblem only if you where developing a library that wraps Qt for other developers. But it would be hypocritical to try to get Qt for free, wrap it and resell it..



Im tellin you, My libraries would be linked to to Qt, lets say it makes a Windows with a QtButton appear, developers who would want to use thet librarie in their code would have to call that librarie that shows a Qt button or other Qt functions to interoperate, they would automatly have to purchase a Qt license, that's discriminartion, and that's one of the reasons Qt can't be part of LSB.

Reply Score: 0

RE: ...
by Anonymous on Wed 27th Jul 2005 14:32 UTC in reply to "..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

Im tellin you, My libraries would be linked to to Qt, lets say it makes a Windows with a QtButton appear, developers who would want to use thet librarie in their code would have to call that librarie that shows a Qt button or other Qt functions to interoperate, they would automatly have to purchase a Qt license, that's discriminartion, and that's one of the reasons Qt can't be part of LSB.

Yeah, you keep telling us.

We keep replying.

You keep ignoring.

Personally, I'm done with hand feeding you information.

Reply Score: 0

RE: ...
by segedunum on Wed 27th Jul 2005 14:37 UTC in reply to "..."
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Im tellin you, My libraries would be linked to to Qt, lets say it makes a Windows with a QtButton appear, developers who would want to use thet librarie in their code would have to call that librarie that shows a Qt button or other Qt functions to interoperate, they would automatly have to purchase a Qt license, that's discriminartion, and that's one of the reasons Qt can't be part of LSB.

You have no idea how linking works, or how you could actually write a KDE application with GTK without paying any kind of license to anyone. If it doesn't have Qt code in it, or use Qt code directly, no problems.

You're trolling for petty political reasons - go back to bed.

Reply Score: 1

...
by Anonymous on Wed 27th Jul 2005 14:41 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Qt is not licensed appropriately under the GPL! Wow. I'd love to see them remove the Linux kernel from the LSB (*ROTFL*) or any other GPL'd software!

Your sarcarms won't help at all, the only GPL program allowed in LSB is Linux, and that's because Linux has a extension on its GPL to allow programs who link it not necessary be GPL as well, Couln't just TrollTech do the same with Qt?

go to www.trolltech.com and complaine there.

Reply Score: 0

RE: ...
by segedunum on Wed 27th Jul 2005 16:04 UTC in reply to "..."
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Your sarcarms won't help at all, the only GPL program allowed in LSB is Linux, and that's because Linux has a extension on its GPL to allow programs who link it not necessary be GPL as well

Neither Linux nor any other GPL'd software has any such extension. The GPL is the GPL. Companies like nVidia have got around it via a certain method, but there is no explicit exception that has allowed them to do it.

You also fall into the trap that all little clueless trolls fall into - namely that if you link against the GPL then your software needs to be GPL'd as well. If your license is GPL-compatible i.e. BSD, LGPL etc. you can link against GPL software, whether Qt, Linux or otherwise. That's the way it works.

You haven't got a clue in hell what you're trolling on about. I suggest you go and do some research before seriously embarrassing yourself further, and do some research on Linus Torvalds' views on writing closed source drivers for Linux to find out what happens with Linux.

go to www.trolltech.com and complaine there.

No, because it's not necessary and no clueless troll is going to make it necessary.

Reply Score: 1

...
by Anonymous on Wed 27th Jul 2005 14:42 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

You keep ignoring.

I think the only one ignoring the facts are you.

go to www.trolltech.com and complaine there.

Reply Score: 0

...
by Anonymous on Wed 27th Jul 2005 14:47 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

You have no idea how linking works, or how you could actually write a KDE application with GTK without paying any kind of license to anyone. If it doesn't have Qt code in it, or use Qt code directly, no problems.

KDE is GPL and GNOME is GPL compatible, sharing their code is not a problem, we are talking about commercial applications here, so get the facts.

And Im talking commercial libraries linked to Qt and use Qt, what's the solution for that?

If it doesn't have Qt code in it, or use Qt code directly, no problems.

But what if it has some Qt code? that's the case in disscutioon stop foolling around.

go to www.trolltech.com and complaine there,

Reply Score: 0

RE: ...
by segedunum on Wed 27th Jul 2005 16:18 UTC in reply to "..."
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

KDE is GPL and GNOME is GPL compatible, sharing their code is not a problem, we are talking about commercial applications here, so get the facts.

Gnome is licensed under the GPL and LGPL. KDE is licensed under the GPL and LGPL, and certainly kdelibs with all the essential KDE stuff you need is LGPL licensed. Linking against it with any kind of software is allowed, and if you don't want to use and pay for Qt for yourself you can use GTK and work on integrating it with KDE - and you can do it legally.

Those are two separate issues you can't understand. Do some research in future.

You also don't know the difference between commercial and proprietary software here. I'm assuming you mean proprietary licensed software.

But what if it has some Qt code? that's the case in disscutioon stop foolling around.

If it has Qt code in it then that would be your problem, but there is no reason in the universe that it should.

go to www.trolltech.com and complaine there,

I suggest you go off and complain there, and stop filling up this article with comments straight out of the funny farm. Alternatively, stick your comments up your rear entrance in future because that's all they're fit for.

Reply Score: 1

You are still missing the point
by amadeo on Wed 27th Jul 2005 14:52 UTC
amadeo
Member since:
2005-07-06

Im tellin you, My libraries would be linked to to Qt, lets say it makes a Windows with a QtButton appear, developers who would want to use thet librarie in their code would have to call that librarie that shows a Qt button or other Qt functions to interoperate, they would automatly have to purchase a Qt license, that's discriminartion, and that's one of the reasons Qt can't be part of LSB.

You are wrong, there would be no interoperability problems. The standards would be set by freedesktop.org, therefore you could use any implementation of the standards you wanted, even if it is a GPL implementation. Code for the standard, not the implementation, and you should be OK. That is how NVidia makes binary linux drivers.

Moreover, you can direct information to GPL apps / libraries and use them in conjunction with your proprietary apps. You just can't link to them. So, for instance, you can use the KDE save dialog with your proprietary app, as you can command it from the command line, you can use KioskTool to manage your app, you can put your proprietary module in KControl. You just cannot use Qt code to write proprietary apps. But then again, you can use GTK, it is there.

You still did not answer what harm Qt in the LSB would cause you.

If you don't want Qt, use the GTK implementation instead. Nobody forces you to use the Qt implementation. You lose nothing if Qt in the LSB.

Reply Score: 1

...
by Anonymous on Wed 27th Jul 2005 14:57 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Moreover, you can direct information to GPL apps / libraries and use them in conjunction with your proprietary apps. You just can't link to them. So, for instance, you can use the KDE save dialog with your proprietary app, as you can command it from the command line, you can use KioskTool to manage your app, you can put your proprietary module in KControl. You just cannot use Qt code to write proprietary apps. But then again, you can use GTK, it is there.

You still did not answer what harm Qt in the LSB would cause you.

If you don't want Qt, use the GTK implementation instead. Nobody forces you to use the Qt implementation. You lose nothing if Qt in the LSB.




You are giving an hipotetic not practique solution, that's only another reason to not include Qt in LSB, Link it first to GPL after that link it to your aappication? Give a way to not use GPL at all and we will get to something, that would create a dependency on GPL or KDE libraries, give me a practique solution to link it directly (w/o intermediaty bs) and we will talk.

go to www.trolltech.com and complaine there.

Reply Score: 0

RE: ...
by segedunum on Wed 27th Jul 2005 16:09 UTC in reply to "..."
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

You are giving an hipotetic not practique solution, that's only another reason to not include Qt in LSB, Link it first to GPL after that link it to your aappication?

Learn to formulate proper English sentences, then we might understand what on Earth you're babbling on about. As it stands, you're full of the brown stuff.

Give a way to not use GPL at all and we will get to something, that would create a dependency on GPL or KDE libraries, give me a practique solution to link it directly (w/o intermediaty bs) and we will talk.

Since you almost certainly can't program anyway, and don't do it for a living, what does it matter to you?

And what's this dependency on GPL, KDE blah, blah blah. You can link against the GPL if you have GPL-compatible software. And a dependency on KDE? Look son. Everything is dependant on everything, including Gnome and GTK-using software, OK? Yer, let's try and remove dependencies for everything! I sometimes wonder how some people can get themselves on the internet.

Reply Score: 1

Stop the FUD
by amadeo on Wed 27th Jul 2005 15:01 UTC
amadeo
Member since:
2005-07-06

And Im talking commercial libraries linked to Qt and use Qt, what's the solution for that?

There is no solution for using Qt code in proprietary apps (not commercial), idiot, except paying a licence to TrollTech. Everybody knows that, you don't have to repeat it.

But you mislead people into believing that you would have to use Qt to write a LSB app. That is not true. Heck, you don't even have to use Qt to write a proprietary KDE app, just use the interoperability hooks. You mislead people into believing that there would be interoperability problems if Qt is in the LSB. This is not true.

Stop spreading lies.

Reply Score: 1

...
by Anonymous on Wed 27th Jul 2005 15:04 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

There is no solution for using Qt code in proprietary apps (not commercial), idiot, except paying a licence to TrollTech. Everybody knows that, you don't have to repeat it.

So that's the reason it can't be on LSB moron, because to be a standar need to be at the reach of all not the only ones who can pay for the license, you are giving me noe the reason, case closet.

you mislead people into believing that there would be interoperability problems if Qt is in the LSB. This is not true

Im not spreading lies, only facts, if that's botter you visit www.trolltech.com and complaine there,

Reply Score: 0

RE: ...
by Morty on Wed 27th Jul 2005 15:30 UTC in reply to "..."
Morty Member since:
2005-07-06

because to be a standar need to be at the reach of all not the only ones who can pay for the license

Pure nonsens, since Qt's inclusion in the LSB will not force anybody to use it if they don't want to or can't afford so stop spreding that lie. Hence there are no reson for not incuding it, case closed.

Actually not including Qt goes contrary to LSB mission statement of defining a base, making it easier for ISV's to develope for Linux. You do not make it easier for ISV's by not suporting the majority desktop.

Go to www.linuxbase.org and complaine there.

Reply Score: 2

Anonymous (IP: 201.138.215.---)
by amadeo on Wed 27th Jul 2005 15:17 UTC
amadeo
Member since:
2005-07-06

So that's the reason it can't be on LSB moron, because to be a standar need to be at the reach of all not the only ones who can pay for the license, you are giving me noe the reason, case closet.

Oh, oh, oh, you want to get other peoples work for free, so you can make money out of it... I am so touched I want to cry...

No, idiot, the LSB is a standard with the objective of making software deployment in Linux easy. Including Qt helps this goal.

Here is the proof, from the LSB site, for ignorants like you:

What is the LSB Project?

The goal of the LSB is to develop and promote a set of binary standards that will increase compatibility among Linux systems (and other similar systems), and enable software applications to run on any conforming system. In addition, the LSB will help coordinate efforts to recruit software vendors to port and write products for such systems.

Is the LSB focused only on developing commercial applications?

Definitely not. When the LSB environment is implemented on a wide range of platforms, all developers will reap the benefit of writing their application without having to handle any special cases for any particular platform. The only benefits which may be special to for-profit companies is that implementing the LSB Specification may increase customer comfort levels and thus sell more platforms and applications.


You see? How including Qt harms this goals?

Reply Score: 1

...
by Anonymous on Wed 27th Jul 2005 15:22 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Oh, oh, oh, you want to get other peoples work for free, so you can make money out of it... I am so touched I want to cry...

I've never seen GTK developers complaine and they work for free, same GNOME developers, same KDE developers.

No, idiot, the LSB is a standard with the objective of making software deployment in Linux easy. Including Qt helps this goal.

How come? forcing you to use GPL in your applications if you cannot pay a $2,000 dls license? yeah, that's a big help.

You see? How including Qt harms this goals?

Because include it wouln'd make it a standar.

got to www.trolltech.com and complaine there.


Here is the proof, from the LSB site, for ignorants like you:

There's a faq in the same site that's explain why Qt can't be in LSB, go and read it.

Reply Score: 0

Before I forget :)
by amadeo on Wed 27th Jul 2005 15:24 UTC
amadeo
Member since:
2005-07-06

The stated LSB goals are not "making the development as cheap as possible", but making the deployment of software as easy as possible. There is the secondary goal of providing a "no strings attached" open source platform, but that is no reason for not including optional libraries under the GPL.

If you don't like the LSB goas, and want to change it to "making the development as cheap as possible", go to http://www.linuxbase.org/ and complain there ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE: Before I forget :)
by anda_skoa on Wed 27th Jul 2005 16:26 UTC in reply to "Before I forget :)"
anda_skoa Member since:
2005-07-07

The stated LSB goals are not "making the development as cheap as possible", but making the deployment of software as easy as possible.

Ah, true. At least that what we thought.
It seems the LSB has shifted goals to otherwise they wouldn't out additional obstacles in the way of developers and ISVs for deploying Qt or MySQL based applications.

While "making the development as cheap as possible" might not be the official goal, it is the currently targeted one.

Reply Score: 1

amadeo
Member since:
2005-07-06

How come? forcing you to use GPL in your applications if you cannot pay a $2,000 dls license? yeah, that's a big help.

Heh, this is starting to be fun! What part of "optional" you are uncapable to understand?

Reply Score: 1

...
by Anonymous on Wed 27th Jul 2005 15:29 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Me too.

Are you a software developer?, whan't to port your small applications to Linux? what? Qt license cost is to insane? you think is bs?

got to www.trolltech.com and complaine there.

Reply Score: 0

...
by Anonymous on Wed 27th Jul 2005 15:31 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Heh, this is starting to be fun! What part of "optional" you are uncapable to understand?

Optional? for who? for those who can pay for the license?

What options have those who can't I don't want to use GPL with Qt?

I got the answer.

None.

Reply Score: 0

RE: ...
by Morty on Wed 27th Jul 2005 15:45 UTC in reply to "..."
Morty Member since:
2005-07-06

Heh, this is starting to be fun! What part of "optional" you are uncapable to understand?

Optional? for who? for those who can pay for the license?


No idiot! Optional in as you don't have to use Qt.

What options have those who can't I don't want to use GPL with Qt?

They can use another toolkit like GTK+.

But you seem rather insistent about using Qt without the GPL. So I guess this is not about licenses at all, but haggling.

Here's some news for you sonny: If your small programming project can not bear the cost of a Qt license it's most likely not commercial viable either. You should come up with a better business plan or a better product.

Reply Score: 1

RE: ...
by anda_skoa on Wed 27th Jul 2005 16:29 UTC in reply to "..."
anda_skoa Member since:
2005-07-07

Optional? for who? for those who can pay for the license?

Exactly! Optional for those who choose to use Qt for its merrits and don't have a problem with paying Trolltech for delivering it.

Reply Score: 1

...
by Anonymous on Wed 27th Jul 2005 15:33 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Pure nonsens, since Qt's inclusion in the LSB will not force anybody to use it if they don't want to or can't afford so stop spreding that lie. Hence there are no reson for not incuding it, case closed.

What about interoperability between those who will use a Qt license in their libraries and those who won't?


They will be forced to buy a license or to not use the librarie, that's a limitant.

go to www.trolltech.com and complaine there.

Reply Score: 0

Let's go with the troll for a ride
by amadeo on Wed 27th Jul 2005 15:34 UTC
amadeo
Member since:
2005-07-06

Optional? for who? for those who can pay for the license?

What options have those who can't I don't want to use GPL with Qt?


The choice is to use GTK instead. How come including Qt in the LSB makes your life any different, if you won't use it anyway? ;)

Reply Score: 1

...
by Anonymous on Wed 27th Jul 2005 15:35 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

The choice is to use GTK instead. How come including Qt in the LSB makes your life any different, if you won't use it anyway? ;)

Read my interoperabilty reply and go to www.trolltech.com and complaine there.

Reply Score: 0

Gotcha!
by amadeo on Wed 27th Jul 2005 15:43 UTC
amadeo
Member since:
2005-07-06

Read my interoperabilty reply and go to www.trolltech.com and complaine there.

Your interoperability reply is not true. Read my comments about is again. It does not prevent you from doing everything in GTK. Got you!

If you don't like the LSB goals, and want to change it to "making the development as cheap as possible", go to http://www.linuxbase.org/ and complain there.

Reply Score: 1

...
by Anonymous on Wed 27th Jul 2005 16:03 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Your interoperability reply is not true. Read my comments about is again. It does not prevent you from doing everything in GTK. Got you!

If you don't like the LSB goals, and want to change it to "making the development as cheap as possible", go to http://www.linuxbase.org/ and complain there.



Your answer still force developers to use GPL, I told you that, you are mind closet.

No idiot! Optional in as you don't have to use Qt.

insults only reveal your frustration, and again, read my interoperability reply.

But you seem rather insistent about using Qt without the GPL. So I guess this is not about licenses at all, but haggling.

Nope, Im worried, Im a software vendor and maybe in the future I will port my applications to linux, I wouln'd like to be forced to use GPL or to but a Qt expensive license.

Go to www.trolltech.com and complain there.

Reply Score: 0

RE: ...
by anda_skoa on Wed 27th Jul 2005 16:32 UTC in reply to "..."
anda_skoa Member since:
2005-07-07

maybe in the future I will port my applications to linux, I wouln'd like to be forced to use GPL or to but a Qt expensive license.

Care to explain that?
How can you currently develop a proprietary application using Qt on a different platform without already owning a licence?

Reply Score: 1

...
by Anonymous on Wed 27th Jul 2005 16:09 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

If your license is GPL-compatible i.e. BSD, LGPL etc. you can link against GPL software, whether Qt, Linux or otherwise. That's the way it works.

But what if is not compatible? We are talking about commercial applications here, forget GPL compatible or something like it, get GPL out of your head on this.

You haven't got a clue in hell what you're trolling on about.

What trolling, I've been only using facts, but its OK, if people don't get it or don't agree will inmediatly calling it "trolling", I don't care.

And

your insults only reveal your frustration

go to www.trolltech.com and complaine there.

Reply Score: 0

RE: ...
by segedunum on Wed 27th Jul 2005 16:22 UTC in reply to "..."
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

But what if is not compatible?

So what? You use software or development tools that are compatible.

We are talking about commercial applications here, forget GPL compatible or something like it, get GPL out of your head on this.

You've been banging on about the GPL, commercial applications and God knows what else for umpteen comments now and you obviously have no clue what you're talking about.

What trolling, I've been only using facts, but its OK, if people don't get it or don't agree will inmediatly calling it "trolling", I don't care.

And where are you getting your facts from?

go to www.trolltech.com and complaine there.

No you go and do it, because it's not a problem for people who know what they're talking about.

Reply Score: 1

...
by Anonymous on Wed 27th Jul 2005 16:11 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Learn to formulate proper English sentences, then we might understand what on Earth you're babbling on about. As it stands, you're full of the brown stuff.

your insults only reveal your frustration

Since you almost certainly can't program anyway, and don't do it for a living, what does it matter to you?

your insults only reveal your frustration

You can link against the GPL if you have GPL-compatible software

But what if my software id not GPL compatible?

get GPL out of your head for this.

Reply Score: 0

RE: ...
by segedunum on Wed 27th Jul 2005 16:26 UTC in reply to "..."
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

your insults only reveal your frustration

You don't know what you're talking about, your don't know about licensing and your comments about the Linux kernel were so wrong it's laughable.

your insults only reveal your frustration

You don't know what you're talking about, your don't know about licensing and your comments about the Linux kernel were so wrong it's laughable.

But what if my software id not GPL compatible?

Tough luck. Find something you can legally link against. It's the same for the Linux kernel, or any GPL licensed software, so you've been trolling against Qt for nothing. The difference with the kernel or any other GPL licensed software is that you don't get a choice of buying any sort of license that will allow you to do it.

get GPL out of your head for this.

You've asked about GPL compatiblity umpteen times.

Reply Score: 1

Total lack of logic
by amadeo on Wed 27th Jul 2005 16:13 UTC
amadeo
Member since:
2005-07-06

Your answer still force developers to use GPL, I told you that, you are mind closet.

If you are not forced to use Qt, how are you forced to use the GPL?

Reply Score: 1

...
by Anonymous on Wed 27th Jul 2005 16:17 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

If you are not forced to use Qt, how are you forced to use the GPL?

but what if you need to interoperate with a librarie that depends of Qt?

You are screwed.

go to www.trolltech.com and complaine there.

Reply Score: 0

RE: ...
by segedunum on Wed 27th Jul 2005 16:29 UTC in reply to "..."
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

but what if you need to interoperate with a librarie that depends of Qt?

If that library is adequately licensed for what you want to do, and it is legally licensed against Qt, there is absolutely no knock-on effect to you whatsoever unless you use Qt directly.

You're absolutely clueless, OK?

You are screwed.

No you're not. See above and go off to some other web sites to do some research before posting here again.

go to www.trolltech.com and complaine there.

Stick it up your backside.

Reply Score: 1

get a clue
by amadeo on Wed 27th Jul 2005 16:20 UTC
amadeo
Member since:
2005-07-06

If your license is GPL-compatible i.e. BSD, LGPL etc. you can link against GPL software, whether Qt, Linux or otherwise. That's the way it works.

But what if is not compatible? We are talking about commercial applications here, forget GPL compatible or something like it, get GPL out of your head on this.

He is not saying that you can develop proprietary applications using GPL libraries, get a clue. He is just correcting your statement where you say:

Linux has a extension on its GPL to allow programs who link it not necessary be GPL as well

He is sayng that you shold rewrite it to say:

Linux has a extension on its GPL to allow programs who link it not necessary be GPL compatible as well

Another correction: the GPL does not prevent commercial developement. It prevents proprietary development.

Note for clueless trolls:
By corfrecting you, I am not claimong that the GPL Qt licence allow you to develop proprietary software.

Reply Score: 1

...
by Anonymous on Wed 27th Jul 2005 16:24 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

KDE is licensed under the GPL and LGPL, and certainly kdelibs with all the essential KDE stuff you need is LGPL licensed. Linking against it with any kind of software is allowed,

We are talking about Qt, not KDE, if KDElibs are LGPLI don't see a problem with them.

and if you don't want to use and pay for Qt for yourself you can use GTK and work on integrating it with KDE - and you can do it legally.

Again, er are talking about Qt, not KDE, Qt, forces you to pay a license if you interoperate eith it in your commercial applications, GTK don't.

Qt cannot be in LSB, read the faq please.

If it has Qt code in it then that would be your problem

That's the reason Qt can't be in LSB, "license atachments"

go to www.trolltech.com and complaine there.

Reply Score: 0

RE: ...
by segedunum on Wed 27th Jul 2005 16:36 UTC in reply to "..."
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

We are talking about Qt

If you're talking about Qt then it is GPL'd as umpteen other libraries are that are in the LSB, including the Linux kernel. A simple way around paying anything is to use GTK, and use GTK to link against and use Qt which is perfectly legal, and develop your applications with GTK.

Ask why other GPL'd software shouldn't be banished from the LSB. It's because of petty political reasons that has been going on for about nine years.

Again, er are talking about Qt, not KDE, Qt, forces you to pay a license if you interoperate eith it in your commercial applications, GTK don't.

See above.

Qt cannot be in LSB, read the faq please.

I have, and part of the criteria is popularity. Since KDE is more popular than Gnome, and uses Qt, you work it out.

That's the reason Qt can't be in LSB, "license atachments"

Whatever you do, if you're too stupid to work out a license then you shouldn't be programming anything. Qt isn't the only GPL licensed piece of software.

go to www.trolltech.com and complaine there.

Stick it up your backside.

Reply Score: 1

Re: ...
by Anonymous on Wed 27th Jul 2005 16:24 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

> Your answer still force developers to use GPL,
> I told you that, you are mind closet.

No you are wrong. Developing with Qt you have the CHOICE between the GPL, the QPL and commercial license. None of them forbid you to link against other libraries and applications which are opensource licensed. With regard to the LSB even if Qt should become part of the LSB this would still leave you the choice to use Gtk. So no closed-minded thinking on our side.

The only closed-mind person in this thread is you who is trying to go on a crusade without proper armor. You are making claims which are obviously false and your obvious lack of understanding with respect to _basic_ topics like "linking" makes it obvious that you are _not_ a software vendor (or a very bad one), _not_ a software engineer (or a really very bad one) but just a troll which seems to have too much time at hand (actually that makes me wonder whether you are unemployed or a lazy student).

Reply Score: 0

amadeo
Member since:
2005-07-06

but what if you need to interoperate with a librarie that depends of Qt?

Why would you, if there is at least one "no strings attached" option in the LSB?

Reply Score: 1

...
by Anonymous on Wed 27th Jul 2005 16:27 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Another correction: the GPL does not prevent commercial developement. It prevents proprietary development.

I don't see how this would affect commercial apps, no problem there.

By corfrecting you, I am not claimong that the GPL Qt licence allow you to develop proprietary software.

And that's the reason Qt can't be in LSB,

read the faqg and go towww.trolltec.com and complaine there.

Reply Score: 0

...
by Anonymous on Wed 27th Jul 2005 16:28 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Tough luck. Find something you can legally link against.

LSB is mean to be for all w/o excluding those with "Tough luck"

That's why Qt cannot be a standar.

read the faqg and go to www.trolltech.com and complaine there.

Reply Score: 0

RE: ...
by segedunum on Wed 27th Jul 2005 16:38 UTC in reply to "..."
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

LSB is mean to be for all w/o excluding those with "Tough luck"

Then go and ask why the Linux kernel and other widely used GPL'd software is in the LSB, because it really is tough luck there.

Reply Score: 1

RE: ...
by Anonymous on Wed 27th Jul 2005 17:10 UTC in reply to "..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

1. ISV 1 wants to write comercial app using Qt. ISV 1 gets a license from TT and writes app. When it comes time to distribute, LSB including Qt makes this easier.

2. ISV 2 likes ISV 1's app and wants to link against some of the libraries it emplements. These libraries are based on Qt so they also require a license. ISV 1 wrote a _commercial_ app. Any linking against their app would be at their discretion (read: pay for a license) anyway. ISV 2 pays for a license, including the rights to link against non GPL Qt and distributes their app. LSB including Qt makes this easier.

3. ISV 3 wants to link against ISV 1's app but can't pony up the cash. What makes anyone think that ISV 1 would be otherwise giving away the rights to link against their code? when they went to the trouble of specifically creating a non-GPL, closed source system? If they had intended bit players to be able to link for free that would have been part of their original decision on which libs to use and they'd have gone with GTK or some other option.

live in the real world, got to ISV 1 and complain, bit player.

Reply Score: 0

look, look
by amadeo on Wed 27th Jul 2005 16:33 UTC
amadeo
Member since:
2005-07-06

Another correction: the GPL does not prevent commercial developement. It prevents proprietary development.

I don't see how this would affect commercial apps, no problem there.

??????

Do you understand the difference of commercial software (software that can be sold), and proprietary software (closed source software)?

Reply Score: 1

...
by Anonymous on Wed 27th Jul 2005 16:34 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

If that library is adequately licensed for what you want to do, and it is legally licensed against Qt, there is absolutely no knock-on effect to you whatsoever unless you use Qt directly.

Read GPL or GPL compatible, you are just repeating the same.

forget about GPL already.

go to www.trolltech.com and complaine there.

Reply Score: 0

RE: ...
by segedunum on Wed 27th Jul 2005 16:43 UTC in reply to "..."
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Read GPL or GPL compatible, you are just repeating the same.

forget about GPL already.


That comment doesn't make any sense. You're simply extremely frustrated now that someone has pointed out what GPL-compatible actually means.

forget about GPL already.

No, because Qt is licensed under the GPL as is the Linux kernel and thousands of other pieces of open source software.

We're all really interested in why Qt is different from the Linux kernel and any other GPL'd pieces of software, and hence, why those pieces of software are included in the LSB and Qt isn't.

Come one - we're all ears (and eyes)!

Reply Score: 1

...
by Anonymous on Wed 27th Jul 2005 16:36 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Care to explain that?
How can you currently develop a proprietary application using Qt on a different platform without already owning a licence?


Sence multiplatform Qt const you about $6000 dls per user, I wouln't even consider buy in it.

Reply Score: 0

RE: ...
by anda_skoa on Wed 27th Jul 2005 16:42 UTC in reply to "..."
anda_skoa Member since:
2005-07-07

Sence multiplatform Qt const you about $6000 dls per user, I wouln't even consider buy in it.

Well, you said that the additional costs for Qt/X11 would be too much for your software, which implies you current software is either already based on Qt or other toolkits like GTK+ are from your point of view not an option for the Linux version.

In the first case you already have a Qt proprietary licence and are using Qt because it was even good enough to compete with the other solutions on the other platform.

In the second case you are out of luck even when Qt is not included in LSB because the included GTK+ is from your point of view not viable.

Reply Score: 1

RE: ...
by segedunum on Wed 27th Jul 2005 16:44 UTC in reply to "..."
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Sence multiplatform Qt const you about $6000 dls per user, I wouln't even consider buy in it.

Sod off and use something else then.

Reply Score: 1

RE: ...
by Anonymous on Sat 30th Jul 2005 22:53 UTC in reply to "..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

Sence multiplatform Qt const you about $6000 dls per user (...)

sence? const? dls? wtf?!

Depending on how much of Qt you want to use (non-GUI, GUI or GUI plus funky database connections and other add-ons) and on how many platforms you intend to use it (one, two or more) the proprietary licensing is PER DEVELOPER and costs between 1420 and 5260 Euro for the first 12 months of maintenance and support and between 440 and 1630 Euro for every additional 12 months (see http://www.trolltech.com/products/qt/pricing.html )

Reply Score: 0

...
by Anonymous on Wed 27th Jul 2005 16:37 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Do you understand the difference of commercial software (software that can be sold), and proprietary software (closed source software)?

I understand Commercial Apps. don't give a damn about GPL or GPL compatible , so stop repeating it as an option.

Reply Score: 0

...
by Anonymous on Wed 27th Jul 2005 16:39 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

If you're talking about Qt then it is GPL'd as umpteen other libraries are that are in the LSB, including the Linux kernel. A simple way around paying anything is to use GTK, and use GTK to link against and use Qt which is perfectly legal, and develop your applications with GTK.

Your giving the same answer, Link your applications to GPL, again, firget about, forget GPL, give an option w/o link it to GPL. Got that? there's no GPL consideration.

Just Foorget It.

go to www.trolltech.com and complaine there.

Reply Score: 0

RE: ...
by segedunum on Wed 27th Jul 2005 16:46 UTC in reply to "..."
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Your giving the same answer, Link your applications to GPL, again, firget about, forget GPL, give an option w/o link it to GPL. Got that? there's no GPL consideration.

It's very easy to do, and it's exactly the same as GTK on Windows. Make GTK use Windows infrastructure and develop with GTK.

I win.

Just Foorget It.

You mean just forget it. Yer I will, because there's no problem.

go to www.trolltech.com and complaine there.

Nothing to complain about mate.

Reply Score: 1

v ...
by Anonymous on Wed 27th Jul 2005 16:39 UTC
Excluding people
by amadeo on Wed 27th Jul 2005 16:40 UTC
amadeo
Member since:
2005-07-06

LSB is mean to be for all w/o excluding those with "Tough luck"

Do you understand that you want to exclude people here, not us. Getting Qt in the LSB does not remove the choice for you. It just makes other people's life easier. You can always use GTK. But if Qt and KDE libraries are not in the LSB, people who develop free software or proprietary software using Qt would have to statically link their software to make sure it would install in a LSB system.

Adding Qt to the LSB would help all these people, and would hurt nobody.

So the reason to exclude it is political.

Reply Score: 2

...
by Anonymous on Wed 27th Jul 2005 16:40 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Then go and ask why the Linux kernel and other widely used GPL'd software is in the LSB, because it really is tough luck there.

I already explained the Linux part, now you list those software listed in LSB you are talkind about, of course, theres none.

Reply Score: 0

RE: ...
by segedunum on Wed 27th Jul 2005 16:56 UTC in reply to "..."
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

I already explained the Linux part

And I explained the fact that Linux has no exceptions you spoke of you clueless moron.

Reply Score: 1

...
by Anonymous on Wed 27th Jul 2005 16:42 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Qt is a completely free GPL toolkit.

And that's the reason it cannot be in LSB, not GPL except Linux allowed, read the faqs, forget about GPL, not GPL, can you read?

go to www.trolltech.com and complaine there.

Reply Score: 0

RE: ...
by segedunum on Wed 27th Jul 2005 16:51 UTC in reply to "..."
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

And that's the reason it cannot be in LSB, not GPL except Linux allowed, read the faqs, forget about GPL, not GPL, can you read?

Then ask the LSB to remove the Linux kernel and all other GPL'd software. You certainly can't read, nor spell.

You've got "except Linux allowed" in there as well, which I find funny. Why should Linux be allowed? Can you tell us?

It's GPL'd and you cannot link non GPL-compatible software against it. It's exactly the same as Qt, except without the commercial license option - i.e. you have no choice. You can't just go off and make closed source drivers if you feel like it. It doesn't fit your bizarre criteria. Why have you made an exception there?

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: ...
by Anonymous on Wed 27th Jul 2005 17:02 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

> You've got "except Linux allowed" in there as
> well, which I find funny. Why should Linux
> be allowed? Can you tell us?

Yeah, ask the LSB to use NetBSD and forbid Linux. That way they have the advantage that they can even better follow their political agenda. In addition to the major desktop environment they also loose the major free Unix-OS. But who cares? It would still be the perfect solution for them to get minimal success as neither users nor ISVs would be interested. But who would want that? LSB is following their closed-minded political agenda anyways.

Reply Score: 0

...
by Anonymous on Wed 27th Jul 2005 16:43 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Adding Qt to the LSB would help all these people, and would hurt nobody.

It would, read my interoperation reply.

and

go to www.trolltech.com and complaine there.

Reply Score: 0

...
by Anonymous on Wed 27th Jul 2005 16:45 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

No, because Qt is licensed under the GPL as is the Linux kernel and thousands of other pieces of open source software.

The inclusion of Linux GPL is explained in LSB.

We're all really interested in why Qt is different from the Linux kernel and any other GPL'd pieces of software, and hence, why those pieces of software are included in the LSB and Qt isn't.

Qt GPL license is a problem to LSB, and not to say a word a bout the commercial one, please read the faq.

and

go to www.trolltech.com and complaine there.

Reply Score: 0

RE: ...
by segedunum on Wed 27th Jul 2005 17:13 UTC in reply to "..."
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

The inclusion of Linux GPL is explained in LSB.

It isn't at all. There is a thread on the subject, and the only reason given is this:

http://freestandards.org/pipermail/lsb-futures/2003-November/001014...

Simply, it would be too inconvenient for people, but of course, when you've got no kernel there's nothing - right?! He even claims that the LSB has nothing to do with the Linux kernel!

The post after that is absolutely stupid, because it talks about royalty fees for Qt. There are no royalty fees.

There is an awful lot of seat squirming and chasing of their own tails. in the LSB when you mention the Linux kernel, the licensing for and Qt and compare them.

The very simple fact is that the LSB simply doesn't want Qt in there because it isn't one of their own pet projects or pieces of software. Like Microsoft and Windows in the past, no one will care because they'll be using the software they want to use anyway - namely KDE and Qt.

If nothing else, we've firmly established that today.

Reply Score: 1

Heh, somebody here really has an agenda
by amadeo on Wed 27th Jul 2005 16:46 UTC
amadeo
Member since:
2005-07-06

It would, read my interoperation reply.

Than aswer to my reply to your interoperation point, where I prove that it is nonsense.

Reply Score: 1

linreadline?
by anda_skoa on Wed 27th Jul 2005 16:49 UTC
anda_skoa
Member since:
2005-07-07

not GPL except Linux allowed

While I am thinking about the no-GPL libs restriction, how does the LSB deal with libreadline?
Do they force LSB compatible distributions to include an implementation other than the GNU one?

Or are the banning all libreadline dependent application like bc, ftp, gdp, gpg, ....?

Reply Score: 1

...
by Anonymous on Wed 27th Jul 2005 16:56 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

To all of you, read tha faq in LSB website about why Qt can't be acepted

and

go to www.trolltecth.com and complaine there.

Reply Score: 0

RE: ...
by Morty on Wed 27th Jul 2005 17:16 UTC in reply to "..."
Morty Member since:
2005-07-06

To all of you, read tha faq in LSB website about why Qt can't be acepted

and

go to www.linuxbase.org and complaine there.

Reply Score: 1

RE: ...
by segedunum on Wed 27th Jul 2005 17:18 UTC in reply to "..."
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

To all of you, read tha faq in LSB website about why Qt can't be acepted

The FAQ doesn't mention Qt, and none of the surrounding information on the mailing lists makes sense either since there is a huge discrepancy with the Linux kernel and other GPL software.

They're desperately chasing their own tails trying to find a reason why the kernel is OK and Qt isn't and there simply isn't one.

go to www.trolltecth.com and complaine there.

Do it yourself, because it is your problem

Reply Score: 1

...
by Anonymous on Wed 27th Jul 2005 16:59 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

And I explained the fact that Linux has no exceptions you spoke of you clueless moron.

Your insults only reveal your frustration.

go to www.trolltecth.com and complaine there.

Reply Score: 0

RE: ...
by segedunum on Wed 27th Jul 2005 17:38 UTC in reply to "..."
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

And I explained the fact that Linux has no exceptions you spoke of you clueless moron.


Your insults only reveal your frustration.


You still haven't explained.

Reply Score: 1

Fast application startup
by anda_skoa on Wed 27th Jul 2005 17:01 UTC
anda_skoa
Member since:
2005-07-07

As the LSB policy seems to require that LSB compliant applications link to all LSB libraries at the same time this will lead to dramatically better startup times of applications as the first LSB application will load all libraries into memory and other applications just have to resolve their symbols.

Hopefully the first LSB compliant application is loaded during boot time, otherwise it would be quite hard to explain why the first desktop application takes ages to load.

Reply Score: 1

...
by Anonymous on Wed 27th Jul 2005 17:06 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

[i]Yeah, ask the LSB to use NetBSD and forbid Linux. That way they have the advantage that they can even better follow their political agenda. In addition to the major desktop environment they also loose the major free Unix-OS. But who cares? It would still be the perfect solution for them to get minimal success as neither users nor ISVs would be interested. But who would want that? LSB is following their closed-minded political agenda anyways.[i/]

go to LSB website and you'll get a clear answer of why Linux can e inclided and why Qt can't.

A don't forget:

go to www.trolltecth.com and complaine there.

Reply Score: 0

...
by Anonymous on Wed 27th Jul 2005 17:14 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

1. ISV 1 wants to write comercial app using Qt. ISV 1 gets a license from TT and writes app. When it comes time to distribute, LSB including Qt makes this easier.

2. ISV 2 likes ISV 1's app and wants to link against some of the libraries it emplements. These libraries are based on Qt so they also require a license. ISV 1 wrote a _commercial_ app. Any linking against their app would be at their discretion (read: pay for a license) anyway. ISV 2 pays for a license, including the rights to link against non GPL Qt and distributes their app. LSB including Qt makes this easier.

3. ISV 3 wants to link against ISV 1's app but can't pony up the cash. What makes anyone think that ISV 1 would be otherwise giving away the rights to link against their code? when they went to the trouble of specifically creating a non-GPL, closed source system? If they had intended bit players to be able to link for free that would have been part of their original decision on which libs to use and they'd have gone with GTK or some other option.

live in the real world, got to ISV 1 and complain, bit player.



Your solutions still forces me to use GPL or to buy a Qt licenses, give me one that's doesn't force me to do any of those.

A don't forget:

go to www.trolltecth.com and complaine there.

Reply Score: 0

RE: ...
by Anonymous on Wed 27th Jul 2005 17:21 UTC in reply to "..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

It's not offered as a solution and you arent forced by anyone to do anything.

Apps (and their libs) using a non free license require you to have the permission of the copyright holder to use their app / libs. If said copyright holder chose an option to allow them to retain control of derivative works / lib linking then that was their decision. This is not TT's fault, GTK's fault or even LSB's fault. LSB including Qt simply makes it easier for the original author to create and distribute their code, which is it's intention. If you (the bit player) want to link against something you don't have the right to and can't aford a license to, that is not TT (or any other supplier of third part libraries) fault. It is the 'fault' of the author who chose to retain their rights and charge for access to them. NOTHING to do with Qt.

However, with an idea towards making app creation and distribution easier, LSB would serve the ISV community better bu including an extremely common and desirable set of libraries.

Nothing to do with TT. Complaining is pointless.

Reply Score: 0

RE: ...
by Morty on Wed 27th Jul 2005 17:23 UTC in reply to "..."
Morty Member since:
2005-07-06

Your solutions still forces me to use GPL or to buy a Qt licenses, give me one that's doesn't force me to do any of those.

As always since it's optional (please use a dictonary to learn what the word means) no one forces you to use Qt. If it's to expensive for you get the needed functionality elsevere or write it yourself.

Repeating the same nonsens over and over again only reveal your frustration

A don't forget:

go to www.linuxbase.org and complaine there.

Reply Score: 1

RE: ...
by segedunum on Wed 27th Jul 2005 17:30 UTC in reply to "..."
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

3. ISV 3 wants to link against ISV 1's app but can't pony up the cash.

If an ISV can't pony up the cash then they're not an ISV. ISVs do this all the time, at least the ones who live in the real-world, make money and don't frequent LSB mailing lists for the latest crap ;-). Do you have any clue how much the average ISV pays for software?

If they can't get the cash then they shouldn't use Qt, but that does not stop them using ISV 1's application.

Your solutions still forces me to use GPL or to buy a Qt licenses, give me one that's doesn't force me to do any of those.

Solution? Don't use Qt and go ahead anyway.

How much more of this is they're going to be until people realise that there is no problem?

Reply Score: 1

...
by Anonymous on Wed 27th Jul 2005 17:18 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

To all of you, read tha faq in LSB website about why Qt can't be acepted

and

go to www.linuxbase.org and complaine there.


Easier way, go to the Software Vendors and ask them to email LSB to let Qt be part pf LSB, oh I forgot, You can't, software vendors dislike Qt licenses.

A don't forget:

go to www.trolltecth.com and complaine there.

Reply Score: 0

RE: ...
by segedunum on Wed 27th Jul 2005 17:24 UTC in reply to "..."
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Easier way, go to the Software Vendors and ask them to email LSB to let Qt be part pf LSB, oh I forgot, You can't, software vendors dislike Qt licenses.

Oh damn, really:

http://www.trolltech.com/company/customers.html

compared with:

http://www.gtk.org/success/

So no one pays for Java IDEs and Visual Studio? Wow, I must learn how to do that!

I'm afraid that's what happened with Unix when Microsoft went off and made everyone use Windows while silly small-minded people tried to standardise everything.

Reply Score: 1

RE: ...
by Morty on Wed 27th Jul 2005 17:30 UTC in reply to "..."
Morty Member since:
2005-07-06

You can't, software vendors dislike Qt licenses.
Nonsens, commercial software vendors have no problem with the Qt license, they are afterall commercial and both used to and have the knowledge to operate in a commercial enviroment. This is nonsens is brought up time after time, but no one has ever showed proof of one real commercial software vendor having problems with the license. On the other hand there are ample evidence of vendors who do not have any problem with the Qt license.

A don't forget:

go to www.linuxbase.org and complaine there, and get an end to this nonsens.

Reply Score: 1

...
by Anonymous on Wed 27th Jul 2005 17:20 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

The FAQ doesn't mention Qt, and none of the surrounding information on the mailing lists makes sense either since there is a huge discrepancy with the Linux kernel and other GPL software.

Weird, there`s a complete faq bout libQt. go there and read it.

A don't forget:

go to www.trolltecth.com and complaine there.

Reply Score: 0

RE: ...
by segedunum on Wed 27th Jul 2005 17:33 UTC in reply to "..."
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Weird, there`s a complete faq bout libQt. go there and read it.

http://www.linuxbase.org/modules.php?name=FAQ

No mention of Qt.

You've also been repeatedly asked to explain the FAQ, should there be one. Pointing to one doesn't make you right I'm afraid.

Reply Score: 1

...
by Anonymous on Wed 27th Jul 2005 17:23 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Comparing both toolkits in terms of performance, features and quality of the documentation/developer tools, I wouldn't exactly say they are in the same ballpark. QT does come with some strings attached, hence why it cannot be the base of a standard, but GTK still have a way to go before becoming a true replacement. Of course, that's my opinion.

You are like 50 reply late.


A don't forget:

go to www.trolltecth.com and complaine there.

Reply Score: 0

RE: ...
by Wrawrat on Wed 27th Jul 2005 17:33 UTC in reply to "..."
Wrawrat Member since:
2005-06-30

You are like 50 reply late.

Yet it doesn't change my point. One is not the exact replacement of the other.

Reply Score: 1

...
by Anonymous on Wed 27th Jul 2005 17:25 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

It's not offered as a solution and you arent forced by anyone to do anything.

Apps (and their libs) using a non free license require you to have the permission of the copyright holder to use their app / libs. If said copyright holder chose an option to allow them to retain control of derivative works / lib linking then that was their decision. This is not TT's fault, GTK's fault or even LSB's fault. LSB including Qt simply makes it easier for the original author to create and distribute their code, which is it's intention. If you (the bit player) want to link against something you don't have the right to and can't aford a license to, that is not TT (or any other supplier of third part libraries) fault. It is the 'fault' of the author who chose to retain their rights and charge for access to them. NOTHING to do with Qt.

However, with an idea towards making app creation and distribution easier, LSB would serve the ISV community better bu including an extremely common and desirable set of libraries.

Nothing to do with TT. Complaining is pointless.



There's still a problem w/o solution and that's why Qt can't be part of LSD, read the faq.

A don't forget:

go to www.trolltecth.com and complaine there.

Reply Score: 0

RE: ...
by Anonymous on Wed 27th Jul 2005 17:34 UTC in reply to "..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

their is certainly an issuse with "LSD" around here but it isnt anything to do with TT.

LSB makes writing and distributing applications easier and more predicatable for authors.

Qt is commonly used set of libraries which provide the potential user with a path to writing both free and non free (as in freedom) applications.

LSB, in trying to make the most broadly useful platform for it's intended audience should include Qt.

No one using LSB is forced to use Qt.

Authors that choose to use Qt and also elect to do so in a manner that allows them to retain control over who links to their code do not create any problem that is not IDENTICAL to any other author who uses any other library in LSB that allows them to retain control over who links to their code.

If an author chooses a library (such as Qt) or otherwise decides to use an aspect LSB that allows them retain linking control of their derivative works and chooses to price it out of your (the bit players) price range then you are out of luck.

No problem, nothing to do with Qt. No one to complain to.

Reply Score: 1

@ Anonymous
by amadeo on Wed 27th Jul 2005 17:44 UTC
amadeo
Member since:
2005-07-06

Thank you, anonymous, for making so clear for us that the arguments for keeping Qt out of the LSB are moot.

I will write an article about it, and submit it here to osnews, and:

I will complain to www.linuxbase.org ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE: @ Anonymous
by Anonymous on Wed 27th Jul 2005 17:48 UTC in reply to "@ Anonymous"
Anonymous Member since:
---

if that Anonymous was me (Qt is a commonly used....) then ... cool ;)

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: @ Anonymous
by amadeo on Wed 27th Jul 2005 17:52 UTC in reply to "RE: @ Anonymous"
amadeo Member since:
2005-07-06

No, anonymous was Anonymous (IP: 201.138.215.---), the clueless troll ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE: @ Anonymous
by anda_skoa on Wed 27th Jul 2005 18:03 UTC in reply to "@ Anonymous"
anda_skoa Member since:
2005-07-07

I will complain to www.linuxbase.org ;)

You probably meant
I will complaine to www.linuxbsae.org ;)

Reply Score: 1

Christ!
by cr8dle2grave on Wed 27th Jul 2005 19:21 UTC
cr8dle2grave
Member since:
2005-07-11

This "debate" is gawd-awful stupid.

The nueronally challenged fool posting as anonymous is an obvious troll, is probably a bored 14 year old child, and quite obviously has never even run a compiler, much less distributed a commericial application. Ignore him. There's little need to correct his false statements (nearly everything he's said) as only an equally ignorant baffoon would possible mistake his gibberish as being possibly true.

That said:

1) I think there's significant cause for concern that the LSB has become hijacked by commercial concerns with an anti-GPL agenda. Now I'm no jack booted Stallmanite, actually I think he's an insufferable lout, but it is simply an unavoidable fact that the GPL serves a central role in Linux, which it would foolish to disregard. If being GPL is sufficient reason for something being excluded from the LSB, then it is the LSB which is at fault, not the GPL.

In any case, the LSB has been a dead letter standard from the get-go, and will likely always remain such.

2) No matter how much I personally prefer KDE and Qt (I consider them vastly superior to GTK and Gnome), it must be acknowledged that Qt introduces certain practical constraints for a range of potential ISVs. Namely, if all you are looking for is a simple toolkit to wrap a GUI around your homegrown code, then Qt is probably overkill.

Qt includes a very rich set of functionality which goes well beyond just providing screen widgets. If you're building a complex application that can make use of much of that functionality, then getting a license from TT could very well be worth it. On the other hand, if all you want to do is to build a simple GUI, then TT's license cost is pretty hard to justify (even if you have plenty of cash on hand).

TT could of course lower their costs, but they've obviously made the business judgement that there simply aren't enough ISV looking to distribute on Linux that they could ever hope recoup their investment through volume licensing. Additionally, they will always be facing competition from GTK which is free. TTs strategy has been to develop a best-of-breed toolkit for which a certain segment of the market will gladly pony up, irrespective of the high cost. Thus far their strategy seems to working fabulously well, and we in the FOSS world get the benefit of world class toolkit for use in FOSS software. A win-win scenario if ever there was one. ISVs who wish develop proprietary (binary only) software, and don't need all of the functionality in Qt, should just use GTK.

The only remaining problem here then is for KDE, which could be put at a disadvantage relative to Gnome if an influx of proprietary GTK software ever happens to transpire (it should be noted that currently there is more proprietary Qt apps available than GTK). Personally, I think the problems for KDE are overstated here, and the all clamoring for UI consistency amounts to a bunch of clatrap, but there is a solution.

In the aftermath of User Linux brouhaha some KDE guys produced a sort of proof-of-concept library for GTK which would allow GTK apps to use the KDE file and print dialogs. When combined with Qt-GTK theme engine for GTK, which recruits Qt to do the actual screen drawing, this would allow for GTK apps to accomplish 90% of what it is people mean when they talk about UI integration (widget drawing and file/print dialogs). I think this idea should be expanded such that would exist a GTK compatibility lib which would serve as a wrapper which, based on info gathered at run time, would call either the Gnome, KDE, Win32, or Aqua file/print dialogs (menu placement could aslo be made a part of this scheme to facilitate better integration with Aqua). With such a compatibility lib, GTK could then effectively serve as a real lowest common denominator toolkit deserving of a priveledged place within the LSB.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Christ!
by amadeo on Wed 27th Jul 2005 20:04 UTC in reply to "Christ!"
amadeo Member since:
2005-07-06

I mostly agree.

My point is not refuting the "no strings attached" criteria. It is to demonstrate that adding Qt does not add "strings", so we agree in this point.

But the interoperability can be reached without choosing toolkits, using the freedesktop standards and libraries. There is no need to choose toolkits.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Christ!
by cr8dle2grave on Wed 27th Jul 2005 20:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Christ!"
cr8dle2grave Member since:
2005-07-11

I don't think we disagree at all. I believe Qt should included in the LSB as it will have no adverse affects upon proprietary ISVs whatsoever. Add to that the fact that it is widely used used by FOSS developers, who should always remain the most important constituency in the eyes of LSB, and I think inclusion of libqt should be a no-brainer.

Re: interoperability

You're correct. Interoperability via fd.o standards and others is a solved problem, but the user facing "integration" L&F problem between toolkits remains.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Christ!
by segedunum on Wed 27th Jul 2005 20:54 UTC in reply to "Christ!"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

This "debate" is gawd-awful stupid.

Quite right.

The nueronally challenged fool posting as anonymous is an obvious troll, is probably a bored 14 year old child, and quite obviously has never even run a compiler, much less distributed a commericial application. Ignore him.

Believe it or not, there are many discussions on the freestandards lists just like this one.

One of the problems is that the people developing the LSB have come out with exactly the same comments as this idiot, and some of the comments made have come from people working for some large IT corporations.

These companies have not been hijacked by an anti-Qt agenda (many of the companies actually use Qt internally to get sensible work done) but it's just they've employed people with some very strange ideas about Qt and no real-world development experience (the word royalty even comes into many mailing list postings), and let's face it, we've heard them all before.

If being GPL is sufficient reason for something being excluded from the LSB, then it is the LSB which is at fault, not the GPL.

Well, they claim that the GPL is not an issue and it's the proprietary licensed software by an ISV that presents an issue because it means paying license fees. Well, that is a decision for a developer or an ISV to make not the LSB. The fact that Qt is licensed under the GPL and allows people to use it as they would any other GPL'd piece of software, as well as allowing ISVs who are using proprietary Qt applications as well means that there is no difference and no problem.

Besides. I suppose it's the same boat for Motif as well. A lot of Unix systems and vendors still use Motif (and they cannot use Lesstif), but it will never be a part of the LSB, and so for Computer Associates, Oracle and other companies the LSB is next to useless.

Just like in the days of Unix in the 80s and early 90s when a lot of people thought they were going to take over the world and standardise everything, people will simply move on to what they want to use - standard or not. In the case of the desktop world, that was Windows.

In the aftermath of User Linux brouhaha some KDE guys produced a sort of proof-of-concept library for GTK which would allow GTK apps to use the KDE file and print dialogs. When combined with Qt-GTK theme engine for GTK, which recruits Qt to do the actual screen drawing, this would allow for GTK apps to accomplish 90% of what it is people mean when they talk about UI integration (widget drawing and file/print dialogs).

Yes, it certainly can be done and it can go much, much further, but when you're dealing with politics all such things go out of the window.

Reply Score: 2

6 points
by Anonymous on Wed 27th Jul 2005 20:58 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

1. If GTK and QT are both included in the LSB, then there is no problem. Don't want to pay for QT? Just use GTK instead. There are no "interoperability" problems.

2. The LSB doesn't matter right now. This is pretty obvious to everyone, I think, but if not just think about how Red Hat can get away without having it.

3. If it ever does become important and QT isn't included, another group will start up (lets call it the QLSB) which will be defined as the exact same thing as the LSB, but additionally with QT included. Every single distro will include this new "QLSB" because adding it to their LSB support would be trivial. Then at that point, the LSB once more becomes meaningless, and the QLSB would be the important standard.

4. Before reading these posts, I actually thought the LSB had a legitimate (but misguided) reason to keep out QT. I've now changed that opinion. I'm going to complain to www.linuxbase.org.

5. The ratings system on these forums are officially a failure. I can't believe I actually just read through all those posts.

6. Complain does NOT have an "e" on the end of it. That really, really, really, started bugging me.

Reply Score: 0

Re: The 6. point
by Morty on Wed 27th Jul 2005 21:22 UTC
Morty
Member since:
2005-07-06

Sorry about the "e"s, I used copy'paste from the trolls posts, and obviously not spell checking.

Reply Score: 1

v ...
by Anonymous on Thu 28th Jul 2005 00:09 UTC
RE: ...
by Anonymous on Thu 28th Jul 2005 16:11 UTC in reply to "..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

reply to my post starting with:

their is certainly an issuse with "LSD" around here but it isnt anything to do with TT.

LSB makes writing and distributing applications easier and more predicatable for authors.

--------

and illustrate how what you said is true.

Reply Score: 0

be happy!
by superstoned on Thu 28th Jul 2005 00:28 UTC
superstoned
Member since:
2005-07-07

dear Anonymous Troll,

you're dreams became true. Trolltech now offers much cheaper alternatives for those who just need a subset of Qt. Qt4 will consist of seperate parts, and you only need to license the ones you need. so cheap development is possible, while those with more difficult needs pay more.

and still the beautifull business model stands: everybody that uses it, contributes back. either with code (GPL) or money...

lets get Qt 4 in LSB 3.0...

Reply Score: 1

...
by Anonymous on Thu 28th Jul 2005 01:02 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

How cheap?

Can I get link?

Reply Score: 0

segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

In private, KDE developers will tell you that the Qt license is a potential problem.

No they won't. I suppose you've been involbed in intimate private conversations then?

And no the linux kernel is GPL but doesn't have "strings attached".

It does have strings attached. The fact that it is GPL'd menas that anyone developing drivers has to be aware of their obligations. You can't keep things closed if you feel like it. You don't get a commercial license like Qt to get around it either.

Read Linus Torvalds' views on closed source drivers and extensions to the kernel. It's very clear, and it hasn't done Linux any harm whatsoever.

The whole QT license fiasco from once being incompatible with GPL to going to straight GPL has fucked up linux desktop development big time.

Wow. Says you.

If Qt had been LGPL (say a community effort) and Gnome had never been started things would be so much better today.

The fact that Qt is infinitely better than anything produced around GTK or Gnome, and always will be, shows you're wrong there and the pragmatic decision to use Qt was right all along. Gnome is still arsing about with C, we got the language neutral arguments for C, then they realised they needed something better like what KDE has, now they're arsing about with Mono and Java which will take years to finish before they're on to something else. Desktop Linux would never have got out of the starting gate with crap like that going on.

The LSB point of view is the exact same as Novell, Sun, and Redhat.

Novell uses Qt for all of their important software, including stuff like YaST. They still do. The only graphical environment you will see for the OES is KDE.

They don't want to pass on a bullshit straight GPL license to their customers.

All of the above companies use GPL'd software other than KDE and Qt.

Fuck KDE. They should've thought about the consequences of the toolkit they chose.

Fuck you. Qt will provide the basis for the best open source desktop bar none when KDE 4.0 comes about, and it will be done without this licensing bullshit that goes on every bloody time. Then the Linux desktop and KDE will finally leave all of this crap and the fanboys behind as it moves off into the real-world like Windows did against Unix in the late 80s and early 90s.

Reply Score: 1

cm__ Member since:
2005-07-07

> Read Linus Torvalds' views on closed source drivers
> and extensions to the kernel. It's very clear, and
> it hasn't done Linux any harm whatsoever.


Here's the discussion: http://kerneltrap.org/node/1735

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

KDE has been deprecated because of the shit Qt license.

the GPL?

Reply Score: 0

cm__ Member since:
2005-07-07

> > it does have strings attached. The fact that it is
> > GPL'd menas that anyone developing drivers has to
> > be aware of their obligations. You can't keep
> > things closed if you feel like it. You don't get a
> > commercial license like Qt to get around it either.


> Bullshit liar. If that was the case then we
> wouldn't have ATI, Nvidia, and other binary,
> proprietary drivers.


The legality of these drivers is actually questionable. Please read http://kerneltrap.org/node/1735 for Linus' opinion on the subject.

Reply Score: 1

180 Comments of Crap
by freakyc on Thu 28th Jul 2005 03:53 UTC
freakyc
Member since:
2005-07-11

I flipped through the first 90 comments scanning for ones without "LSB" or "license" in them. I'd be surprised if I found 10 of them. I flipped to the last two pages of comments and you're still going at it. Thanks for wasting my time.

Reply Score: 1