Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

KDE Should Be Fully Running On Wayland Next Summer

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Ericg View Post
    Ugly? The DE is the most customizable thing available. If you don't like it, theme it.

    Half propriatery? ...You're a troll. A bad one at that because this topic has been discussed to death.
    It's customisable but by default it looks ugly. Looks unprofessional to me, but i guess geeks don;t care.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Ericg View Post
      Ugly? The DE is the most customizable thing available. If you don't like it, theme it.
      And why would I do that when I can take, for example, Xfce and have a sane UI out-of-the-box?

      Originally posted by Ericg View Post
      Half propriatery? ...You're a troll. A bad one at that because this topic has been discussed to death.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qt_%28...k%29#Licensing
      Sorry, I don't know how a fact of reality can be a "topic" or how it can be discussed.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Delgarde View Post
        Weston was never intended to be an end-user desktop... more a proof of concept, a reference implementation for others to copy from.
        and this is what ppl dont get

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Ericg View Post
          Ugly? The DE is the most customizable thing available. If you don't like it, theme it.

          Half propriatery? ...You're a troll. A bad one at that because this topic has been discussed to death.
          Well, to be fair to him, the guy he was replying to was just as big a troll as he was.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by prodigy_ View Post
            And why would I do that when I can take, for example, Xfce and have a sane UI out-of-the-box?


            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qt_%28...k%29#Licensing
            Sorry, I don't know how a fact of reality can be a "topic" or how it can be discussed.
            LGPL is half propriatery? Or do you mean the fact that there's a commercial / closed source license available? Because that parts covered by http://www.kde.org/community/whatisk...foundation.php effectively nullifying any issues of using Qt for your (F)OSS application.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Ericg View Post
              LGPL is half propriatery? Or do you mean the fact that there's a commercial / closed source license available? Because that parts covered by http://www.kde.org/community/whatisk...foundation.php effectively nullifying any issues of using Qt for your (F)OSS application.
              don't you have to pay them to use it commercially?

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by phoen1x View Post
                It's customisable but by default it looks ugly. Looks unprofessional to me, but i guess geeks don;t care.
                Its not that I don't care (I do), I just immediately apply a different theme so it stops bugging me. Same with the icons.

                Personally I think Gnome has the same issue-- bad default theme and icons. I'm really curious as to why Gnome hasn't been able to adopt Faenza/Faience as the default icon theme, and KDE hasn't been able to adopt KFaenza / Kotenza as the default icon theme.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by LinuxGamer View Post
                  don't you have to pay them to use it commercially?
                  Pretty sure yeah. If you want to make a paid app: you pay Digia the commercial license. If you want to make a free app, you use LGPL Qt. And the difference between LGPL and Commercial Qt is a select modules. It's kind of like an Open Core licensing (Free base, paid bonus features) but thats not really accurate since the "free base" is actually like 99% of the product and the "paid bonus features" is like less than 1% of the product.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Ericg View Post
                    Pretty sure yeah. If you want to make a paid app: you pay Digia the commercial license. If you want to make a free app, you use LGPL Qt. And the difference between LGPL and Commercial Qt is a select modules. It's kind of like an Open Core licensing (Free base, paid bonus features) but thats not really accurate since the "free base" is actually like 99% of the product and the "paid bonus features" is like less than 1% of the product.
                    if i remember a lot of work on WoW Frame Work is QT

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by LinuxGamer View Post
                      don't you have to pay them to use it commercially?
                      No, you can still use the LGPL license for commercial applications so long as it is dynamically linked.

                      The reason you would need the closed license is if you want to statically link to Qt for whatever reason, or you want to modify the source code of Qt without releasing your changes to the public.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Ericg View Post
                        LGPL is half propriatery? Or do you mean the fact that there's a commercial / closed source license available? Because that parts covered by http://www.kde.org/community/whatisk...foundation.php effectively nullifying any issues of using Qt for your (F)OSS application.
                        It's not about what license Qt is available under right now. It's about what it represents. Initially it took 5 years and a lot of pressure to make Trolltech release it under GPL. But I don't really hate Qt like I hate Unity or KDE. I simply find it irrelevant because the only worthwhile piece of software that uses Qt to date is Transmission.
                        Last edited by prodigy_; 07-23-2013, 02:05 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by TheBlackCat View Post
                          No, you can still use the LGPL license for commercial applications so long as it is dynamically linked.

                          The reason you would need the closed license is if you want to statically link to Qt for whatever reason, or you want to modify the source code of Qt without releasing your changes to the public.
                          Thats what it was, I knew there was a packaging trigger for commercial vs LGPL licensing. If you want to statically link your app, you have to pay, or if you want to modify without release, you have to buy.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by prodigy_ View Post
                            I simply find it irrelevant because the only worthwhile piece of software that uses Qt to date is Transmission.
                            Yeah, who ever uses things like Mathematica, VLC, MythTV, Maya, or Scribus.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by TheBlackCat View Post
                              Yeah, who ever uses things like Mathematica, VLC, MythTV, or Maya.
                              or WoW

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by TheBlackCat View Post
                                Yeah, who ever uses things like Mathematica, VLC, MythTV, Maya, or Scribus.
                                Mathematica and Maya are proprietary and I thought we were discussing FOSS here. And the rest... well... I'm sure someone cares.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X