Linked by Andrew Youll on Fri 19th Aug 2005 21:13 UTC, submitted by tbutler
KDE Just over a year ago, Tim Butler wrote an article which outlined why he thought the GNOME Project was clearly the free software desktop project with the best vision of the future. KDE's Appeal Project, which has been brewing for some time now, looks to a different set of issues that need solving and has some very smart minds at work on solving those problems. In a few words, KDE's got some of "that vision thing" too, according to Tim.
Thread beginning with comment 21097
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: KDE is a failure - part II
by segedunum on Sun 21st Aug 2005 22:30 UTC in reply to "KDE is a failure - part II"
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

See the problem with the Qt license is not really the license(s), but the fact that its a library and its at the core of the desktop. That's why it won't be included in the LSB.

Don't recall the LSB ever coming up here. And as the LSB are totally irrelevant (Red Hat will never get involved) your little rant is meaningless. We've also been through that before. I suggest you find some comments on another artcile about that and reply to those in turn. That's been waded through before.

It's an end product, not a library. You don't need to pay anything for Microsoft's SDKs or Apples

My God, are you really that thick? Has nothing sank through at all? With Apple and Microsoft you still pay for Windows and you still pay for Office and you still need to pay for decent development tools like VS and you still need to pay for CALS....... Apple and Microsoft haven't gone bankrupt like Ximian and Eazel did so they're not giving everything away, are they?

I don't see Microsoft or Apple magically giving their software away and allowing free software development. Am I missing something here, or is this just your bizarre little world cropping up again?

And Segedunum, if you and the other KDE fandweebs hadn't attacked the guy from the beginning, the license issue wouldn't have come up

Yawn.

In your attempt in shouting people down,

It was still quoted and his argument was still crap and it was still shot down in flames. Doesn't alter anything.

you just bring more attention to the issue.

You're the one trying to hype it as an issue without actually replying to the original arguments and comments.

Please try replying to the actual issues at hand rather than repeating the same stuff if you want to look even anywhere near credible (that'll bee the day!).

Reply Parent Score: 1

Lumbergh Member since:
2005-06-29

Don't recall the LSB ever coming up here. And as the LSB are totally irrelevant (Red Hat will never get involved) your little rant is meaningless. We've also been through that before. I suggest you find some comments on another artcile about that and reply to those in turn. That's been waded through before.

So now that LSB won't include Qt it's meaningless. Standards are meaningless to you because you don't like the decision. So typical of you seg.

My God, are you really that thick? Has nothing sank through at all? With Apple and Microsoft you still pay for Windows and you still pay for Office and you still need to pay for decent development tools like VS and you still need to pay for CALS....... Apple and Microsoft haven't gone bankrupt like Ximian and Eazel did so they're not giving everything away, are they?

How stupid can you possibly be Seg? You get windows with your computer or pay $100 and after that you don't have to pay Microsoft a dime. You don't have to pay for Office if you don't want it (put down the crackpipe), and you don't have to pay for VS. What are you so weak that you need Visual Studio to do development. I guess you're more of a Kdevelop guy than a Vim or Emacs guy.

Let's look at Qt. You pay the trolls $1500/per developer/per platform. Let's say you have 3 developers for two platforms. That's freaking $9k. All other SDKs are free. If the trolls sold an IDE and gave away the toolkit, there wouldn't be a problem.

It was still quoted and his argument was still crap and it was still shot down in flames. Doesn't alter anything.

You didn't shoot anything down. You just hope that the issue will go away, which it won't as long as Qt has a crap license.

You're the one trying to hype it as an issue without actually replying to the original arguments and comments.

You still haven't responded to most of my arguments.

Reply Parent Score: 0

segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

You get windows with your computer or pay $100 and after that you don't have to pay Microsoft a dime.

It isn't as simple as that, is it? There's other software to put on to Windows because Windows by itself doesn't do very much - unlike a Linux distro.

You don't have to pay for Office if you don't want it (put down the crackpipe)

Oh yer. Everybody gets very, very far in the business world without being able to make Office documents and send them ;-).

and you don't have to pay for VS.

You don't have to pay for Qt either.

What are you so weak that you need Visual Studio to do development.

Because you get zilch of the supposed benefits of .Net without Visual Studio and everything is infinitely harder?!

You didn't shoot anything down. You just hope that the issue will go away, which it won't as long as Qt has a crap license.

You still haven't gone back and addressed them. Why didn't I shoot them down specifically?

You still haven't responded to most of my arguments.

You haven't got any arguments. I've asked you to reply to mine and now you think you can wave it away by asking me to reply to yours. You need to check yourself into a clinic son.

You go back and reply to the issues at hand, and work from there - OK? Until that happens I'll leave you to stew in your own juice, because you've been comprehensively kicked to pieces, as per usual.

Reply Parent Score: 0