Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 21st Jul 2005 21:21 UTC
Java IBM has begun participating in open-source Java project Harmony and intends to contribute code to the initiative, according to a Big Blue executive.
Permalink for comment 7888
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Why not Mono?
by segedunum on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 22:13 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Why not Mono?"
Member since:

You were the one screaming about Mono and Gnome fanboys in previous posts.

Where? All I did was point out that Mono was simply not an option in the Unix/Linux space simply because the vast majority of applications servers, where all the money is, are Java. That's where the market is, and that's why IBM wants to get involved in this project. Then all hell broke loose.

Java. That seemed to be the subject of this article.

You and the other KDE developers over at are constantly wringing your hands over Gnome.

Well, I'm not a KDE developer - not yet anyway.

Just sick of the bullshit quite frankly, because it only hurts desktop Linux and its image when people promise X, Y and Z, and have been doing so and coming up short for years.

You guys must be worried about something.

I'm not afraid of a desktop that isn't up to the job, or maybe I am, which is why I don't think Gnome is up to the job for reasons I have stated.

And obviously the Qt license as well as it being controlled by Trolltech is a huge reason why Novell, and Redhat, and Sun focus on Gnome.

Trolltech does not control the GPL the last I looked, nor does it control what people do with Qt or what they link against - as long as it's GPL compatible. If you want to write applications with GTK or some other software and use Qt and KDE infrastructure without paying for any licenses, that's absolutely fine. It can be done, which blows the license theory for using Gnome completely out of the water.

You can also cross Novell off your list, but I suppose we'll never see the last of it. All of the graphical front-ends for OES in YaST have been written with Qt, and software that actually makes money continues to be written with it.

The license, as you and others so nicely put it, may or may not have been a factor, but quite frankly, neither Red Hat's or Sun's desktops are of a good enough standard and a lot of that is down to the tools and software used. Many of Sun's engineers even grumbled under their breath that they'd made the wrong desktop choice, but that's their funeral. When your software isn't up to snuff, it's never going to be good enough no matter how wonderful many fanboys consider the license to be. Qt does not exist for fanboys to develop their crappy shareware for nothing, but that doesn't mean you can't use something else quite adequately.

Businesses and users simply do not give a toss how favourable fanboys think the license is, or isn't, and the license of Qt doesn't even matter as I've pointed out.

Reply Parent Score: 1