Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 13th Jul 2005 14:00 UTC, submitted by Timothy R. Butler
GNU, GPL, Open Source Tim Butler knew when he mentioned something negative about the GNU Project's General Public License (GPL), in his column on KDE last week, he would inevitably be accused of arguing the GPL was a bad license. What did not fit into that piece shall now be dealt with: is the GPL a bad license or is the issue he complained about something else?
Thread beginning with comment 3660
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
totally unrealistic
by on Wed 13th Jul 2005 16:36 UTC

Member since:

License discussions aside, it seems that Tim Butler has absolutely no clue of development and of what is doable and what is not. The suggestion to replace Qt by something else for KDE4(!) is a bad joke.
Qt spent years paying excellent developers fulltime to make Qt the great toolkit it is today.

If KDE would want to do that, the project had to

a) write its own toolkit that is LGPL and as good as Qt (or go for Gtk2)
b) port all KDE applications to the new toolkit. And that's not only UI, its also strings, containers, etc. pp.

In one year of course I suppose.
Better plan 3-4 years.

No thanks. I don't want KDE to end up as Enlightenment did. Development should go on in iterations. Rewriting everything from scratch is just not the way to go.

Reply Score: 0

RE: totally unrealistic
by tbutler on Wed 13th Jul 2005 16:45 in reply to "totally unrealistic"
tbutler Member since:

No, I wouldn't suggest that should be done in a year. I'd delay KDE 4 until it could be done, and concentrate on a ABI compatible (KDE 3) tree until such time as a shift could be made.

(In the interest of making GNU/Linux a better desktop platform, it is preferable that ABI incompatible releases of KDE *and* GNOME are much farther apart then even they are now, in my estimation...)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: totally unrealistic
by youknowmewell on Wed 13th Jul 2005 16:56 in reply to "RE: totally unrealistic"
youknowmewell Member since:

We could go to the extreme and do as Windows does and maintain compatibility for 15 years, how about that? Problems arrive when we are bogged down by legacy code. "Release early, release often" is the name of the game, the point is to get new things out there faster so that more people can use it so that bugs get found and squashed faster so that the new things become better faster. People complain about bloat, imagine the bloat from the legacy code from 15 years ago! No thanks, rapid-release is for me. Get rid of the old, redundant, code please. I think what both KDE and GNOME are doing regarding ABI compatibility is pretty reasonable.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: totally unrealistic
by anda_skoa on Wed 13th Jul 2005 17:00 in reply to "RE: totally unrealistic"
anda_skoa Member since:

It is a totally hypothetical thing anyway.

Such a change would require a development team interested in making this happen additionally to the one working on KDE itself.

My estimation is that there are not enough developers out there that want to compete with Trolltech's team without knowing if your work will be used at all.

They would have to deliver a solution at least as good as Qt and equal further development efforts before the KDE developer team would be even discussing it as an alternative.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: totally unrealistic
by on Wed 13th Jul 2005 16:53 in reply to "totally unrealistic"
Member since:

Tim Butler has absolutely no clue of development

That sums it up nicely I think.

Reply Parent Score: 0