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.
Thread beginning with comment 7693
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Why not Mono?
by segedunum on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 17:43 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Why not Mono?"
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

We all know what the real problem is. And no matter how much kde developers/fanboys put their fingers in their ears, yell "lalalalaa...I can't hear you"

You're going somewhat off-topic now, but when you start talking about KDE everyone knows that you know that you've lost ;-).

And that's why Eclipse (which I noticed you're interested in), and the new Swing in Mustang, and Classpath, and Novell, and RedHat, and Sun all chose gtk+.

Well they use GTK primarily, and quite frankly, so what? IBM actually have an expensive agreement with Trolltech to use Qt for Websphere, but that's by the by.

There is actually no reason why you can't write a KDE application using GTK and integrating with KDE infrastructure, and that's what stuff like QtGTK was, and is, about. The GTK and Qt licenses used are totally compatible. The last I looked GTK, and other tookits, ran fine when running under KDE and Windows and integrated pretty well. That's a pretty good example of how silly these toolkit arguments have got. How many tookits do you see running under Windows? A lot - including GTK and Qt. Do you hear all of this stuff about toolkit X and Y on Windows? No.

However, having good enough programming tools to build a desktop environment and the huge amount of infrastructure needed with is an entirely different matter, and Qt is simply the best option available today for that. The architecture of KDE, the integration, its applications and its quality has proved that.

We're not going to get one toolkit for everything I'm afraid (shock - neither Qt nor GTK will die!), but you simply have to apply the old cliche of what works best for what job. No matter how liberal, or not, the license is there is always a trade-off.

Surveys are completely meaningless and you know it. It's like the braindeads in the media doing a poll which nobody buys.

Yawn. When you've got thousands of people filling in the survey for two years running, and most consistently say they're using KDE, that's fairly conclusive. I'd love to hear about the malicious KDE users who've managed to vote ten times each :-). You can't just ignore surveys you don't like, and I'm sure if the roles were reversed we'd never hear the last of it.

If you have a survey somewhere, or at least some fairly solid evidence, that there are *quote* millions *unquote* of Gnome users, then give us all a call.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: Why not Mono?
by g2devi on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 18:45 in reply to "RE[5]: Why not Mono?"
g2devi Member since:
2005-07-09

Well they use GTK primarily, and quite frankly, so what? IBM actually have an expensive agreement with Trolltech to use Qt for Websphere, but that's by the by.

That's strange. AFAIK, Websphere is based off Eclipse, and Eclipse is based off of Win32 on Windows and Gtk+ on Linux (and Motif on Solaris).

Otherwise, the issue is moot. Qt is still popular because it has value, and so is Gtk+.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: Why not Mono?
by Lumbergh on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 18:47 in reply to "RE[5]: Why not Mono?"
Lumbergh Member since:
2005-06-29

You were the one screaming about Mono and Gnome fanboys in previous posts. You and the other KDE developers over at www.kdedeveloper.org are constantly wringing your hands over Gnome. It's hilarious. You guys must be worried about something.

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.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: Why not Mono?
by segedunum on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 22:13 in reply to "RE[6]: Why not Mono?"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

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 www.kdedeveloper.org 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