Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Digia Looking At Windows WinRT Support In Qt 5.2

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Honton View Post
    I don't want "quality" for Linux. I want Linux to be supported as mush as possible, and that means compromise with multiplatformism. I want tool kit level software to be as free and fairly governed as possible, and that means compromise with commercial Qt.
    Qt has amazing linux support, in many ways better then other platforms since you can use it as the native toolkit here. That is what I mean by quality.

    Qt is LGPL like gtk.
    Qt is FOSS, and the KDE Qt agreement make sure it will always be FOSS and can never be closed.

    But yes, there is a CLA, and if you do not like, that is a valid point against Qt. But that is a licensing reason, not a technical one. Digia cannot dual license Qt to make money and would therefore not exist with the CLA so I do not mind it.

    If you do not like it the solution is simple: do not write your software with Qt.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by n3wu53r View Post
      You never want one dominant platform to rule them all with 90%+ marketshare. That monopoly and monoculture leads to stagnation. You also don't want users to be locked-in to one platform due to vendors. All of this is "anti-freedom".
      I agree with most of what you're saying, but I disagree with this part. It would be true if the dominant platform was commercial, but not if the dominate platform is free to use & learn from by everyone. In the case of Open Source, "market" dominance is a good thing (less fragmentation, more unified open efforts which benefit everyone).

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by F i L View Post
        I agree with most of what you're saying, but I disagree with this part. It would be true if the dominant platform was commercial, but not if the dominate platform is free to use & learn from by everyone. In the case of Open Source, "market" dominance is a good thing (less fragmentation, more unified open efforts which benefit everyone).
        Not necessarily. If your dominant you have little competition and thus reason to advance. This is why android dominance and webkit monoculture is bad and scary. The webkit monoculture could return us to IE6 days.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by n3wu53r View Post
          Not necessarily. If your dominant you have little competition and thus reason to advance. This is why android dominance and webkit monoculture is bad and scary. The webkit monoculture could return us to IE6 days.
          Well the problem is the you in your example. If the 'you' is a for-profit corporation that controls the code, then yes, it stagnates. However, if everything is completely open then the 'you' is just the developing community at large and project leads. Developers everywhere can keep evolving open software to their needs. Take Linux, for example. I don't think Linux gained popularity on servers and devices because of it's competition with Windows and Unix. It's because projects everywhere needed a OS solution they could control and modify to fit their purpose, and Linux is the "best" open-source option, so they use that. Sure, other OSs encouraged Linux growth by trying things different.. but that's simply the flow of ideas in general at work.

          I don't know much about Webkit, but I highly doubt that a heavily used open-source project could stagnate anywhere close to the degree of IE6... those where dark days.. but if you remove the corrupt church, the dark-ages disappear as well
          Last edited by F i L; 08-28-2013, 03:32 PM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by F i L View Post
            Well the problem is the you in your example. If the 'you' is a for-profit corporation that controls the code, then yes, it stagnates. However, if everything is completely open then the 'you' is just the developing community at large and project leads. Developers everywhere can keep evolving open software to their needs. Take Linux, for example. I don't think Linux gained popularity on servers and devices because of it's competition with Windows and Unix. It's because projects everywhere needed a OS solution they could control and modify to fit their purpose, and Linux is the "best" open-source option, so they use that. Sure, other OSs encouraged Linux growth by trying things different.. but that's simply the flow of ideas in general at work.

            I don't know much about Webkit, but I highly doubt that a heavily used open-source project could stagnate anywhere close to the degree of IE6... those where dark days.. but if you remove the corrupt church, the dark-ages disappear as well
            Even if it's not for profit it still applies. Linux desktops environments compete for users. If one were to utterly dominate, the developers wouldn't be so motivated to advance and just whatever they felt like since they are dominant. But at least with open things, if stagnation like this happen, it's much much easier for new players to make disruptions.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Honton View Post
              No, no and no. Qt is broadly licensed, offered as closed source and open source. KDE Qt agreement can do nothing about Digia stops developing the open source version. They just need to do a minimal release every year. Citing some non-features and remove others for performance. And what happens if worst case happens? KDE gets to relicense the LGPLed Qt for the X window system. They can't touch Qt for Linux Embedded or any other platform, and they can't touch non-free Qt. The Agreement is worthess and can only be used to remove software freedom, not defend it. Since Qt is already LGPL, KDE can only retalitate by doing a MT/BSD relicense. And that kills software freedom.

              And the worst part is KDE is exclusive to this agreement. Other free Qt stakeholders are told to go away. This just adds up to the inequality, unfairness and freedom hating. KDE is better off without this moot agreement. Burn it.
              every line of code currently in qtproject repository is protected by GPL and therefor cannot be hide or removed without face litigation, the CLA only allows digia to copy the code to their own repos and add an closed license to the same code but even so if they make modifications to the base code in qtproject repos they have to release that code to comply with GPL, CLA or not

              qt for embedded ceased to exist in Qt4 series and Qt for Vxworks and other obscure platforms never were open to start with, with Qt5 QPA abstract the platform aka i can just git clone qtproject repo and compile for every supported platform [X11,wayland,OS X, Windows, Android, iOS -- X86/arm/powerpc/etc -- using Gcc/ICC/clang/etc] just switching flags in the configure phase.

              this agreement is for future code not yet released as GPL in the git repo so digia cannot longer relicense the gpl code for their closed use hence is true too KDE cannot block or remove the GPL version either, just the new code that is not licensed yet and since KDE is a non-profit organization i doubt they use anything different than lgpl or gpl3 like it is right now

              please literate yourself before spout crap about a project you ovbiously never used in your life or an organization you ovbiously know nothing about or a set of legal terms you never even understood properly

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by danielnez1 View Post
                Perhaps it's sour grapes due to GTK+'s flakey cross platform support
                Flaky cross platform support?
                GTK runs on both Debian and Fedora!

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by jrch2k8 View Post
                  every line of code currently in qtproject repository is protected by GPL and therefor cannot be hide or removed without face litigation, the CLA only allows digia to copy the code to their own repos and add an closed license to the same code but even so if they make modifications to the base code in qtproject repos they have to release that code to comply with GPL, CLA or not

                  qt for embedded ceased to exist in Qt4 series and Qt for Vxworks and other obscure platforms never were open to start with, with Qt5 QPA abstract the platform aka i can just git clone qtproject repo and compile for every supported platform [X11,wayland,OS X, Windows, Android, iOS -- X86/arm/powerpc/etc -- using Gcc/ICC/clang/etc] just switching flags in the configure phase.

                  this agreement is for future code not yet released as GPL in the git repo so digia cannot longer relicense the gpl code for their closed use hence is true too KDE cannot block or remove the GPL version either, just the new code that is not licensed yet and since KDE is a non-profit organization i doubt they use anything different than lgpl or gpl3 like it is right now

                  please literate yourself before spout crap about a project you ovbiously never used in your life or an organization you ovbiously know nothing about or a set of legal terms you never even understood properly
                  But Digia can make closed source extensions and cripple QT project or...

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Ramiliez View Post
                    But Digia can make closed source extensions and cripple QT project or...
                    if the agreement get applied digia will get their qt version and community will stay with their version, before that probably digia will sell Qt to other party leaving the agreement valid in the process for the next owner instead of send millions of dollars to the trashcan.

                    Qt don't have closed extensions, digia have closed components for the Qt Tollkit to make closed devs lives easier, i know you meant the Qt charts that we already have in calligra fully opensource btw

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Ramiliez View Post
                      But Digia can make closed source extensions and cripple QT project or...
                      I can make proprietary extensions as can anyone else, that's called the LGPL, they don't even need a CLA for that, however that is not going to cripple the Qt project, because the only way that they could cripple the Qt Project is if like S3TC for OpenGL it was an extension that was considered the norm to use and while that's not going to happen, if it did happen the KDE community would write an alternative resulting in the same Qt vs KDE split that we see today and will continue to see until KF5 is released.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Honton View Post
                        I don't want "quality" for Linux. I want Linux to be supported as mush as possible, and that means compromise with multiplatformism.
                        That makes absolutely no sense. If you want as much support for Linux as possible then having a popular multiplatform toolkit is the best thing you could get. See, Windows and OS X cover ~98% market share, the chances that someone is willing to write a high quality app that doesn't support those two platforms is extremely unlikely, same goes for mobile where Android, iOS, Windows Phone and BlackBerry cover the entire market. Now cross platform support is valuable because otherwise developing for multiple platforms becomes extremely expensive and that makes Qt very tempting. When some one then writes a application for iOS and Android on Qt he can trivially port it to Ubuntu Phone, Sailfish or any other GNU/Linux OS. Same goes for desktop platforms. The small players are the ones to gain the most from multiplatform support.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Teho View Post
                          That makes absolutely no sense. If you want as much support for Linux as possible then having a popular multiplatform toolkit is the best thing you could get. See, Windows and OS X cover ~98% market share, the chances that someone is willing to write a high quality app that doesn't support those two platforms is extremely unlikely, same goes for mobile where Android, iOS, Windows Phone and BlackBerry cover the entire market. Now cross platform support is valuable because otherwise developing for multiple platforms becomes extremely expensive and that makes Qt very tempting. When some one then writes a application for iOS and Android on Qt he can trivially port it to Ubuntu Phone, Sailfish or any other GNU/Linux OS. Same goes for desktop platforms. The small players are the ones to gain the most from multiplatform support.
                          I wouldn't waste my breath on him. He's like funkstar except that this particular GNOME troll for some reason also thinks that bad software design is good, and that well designed software is bad...

                          and I'm willing to bet you he hasn't touched a single line of code in his life... and if he has, well I want to stay well away from whatever horrible mess he wrote..
                          Last edited by Luke_Wolf; 08-28-2013, 07:22 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
                            I wouldn't waste my breath on him.
                            I wouldn't if I didn't get any enjoyment out of it. I doubt anyone here really takes Honton seriously, he's a joke and I guess we are on it. In any case refuting his claims gives similar enjoyment to watching horrible shows on TV, it's fun when you can just break it apart... and similarly you forget it the next day, it took me a while to even remember who funkystar was even though I had lenghty arguments with him.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Luke_Wolf,
                              I'm aware that they are working on a KDE Tablet but not aware of anything that would work reasonably on a phone. Cool but short video. I develop with Qt and KDE is my favorite DE so I'm pretty excited about what I saw in the video. Beings Unity also uses Qt, I figured that eventually there would be a KDE version anyway or that I would be able to hack something together. I've never really cared for the idea of syncing/cloud going through the web unless absolutely necessary so the idea of convergence is much more appealing to me since the device itself is more the central syncing place, yet still mobile since you just take it with you(since if you don't have the device with you anyway, neither solution really works). Once the external display could be eliminated from the equation(such as a holographic projector built into the devices), then I think the whole convergence idea would be complete.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by red_team316 View Post
                                Luke_Wolf,
                                I'm aware that they are working on a KDE Tablet but not aware of anything that would work reasonably on a phone. Cool but short video. I develop with Qt and KDE is my favorite DE so I'm pretty excited about what I saw in the video.
                                Well there's nothing in the works for phones... yet... at least as far as I've heard. The tablet is just the first step in the KDE community actualizing what Meego set out to do. Phones and various infotainment systems will come later in the long run.

                                Originally posted by red_team316 View Post
                                Beings Unity also uses Qt, I figured that eventually there would be a KDE version anyway or that I would be able to hack something together.
                                It's certainly possible that Unity might switch over to basing itself on KDE, there's certainly plenty going for that idea as you can basically hack it into that form already, but either they'd have to write their own compositor or switch back to wayland since the Kwin team has no interest in Mir.

                                Originally posted by red_team316 View Post
                                I've never really cared for the idea of syncing/cloud going through the web unless absolutely necessary so the idea of convergence is much more appealing to me since the device itself is more the central syncing place, yet still mobile since you just take it with you(since if you don't have the device with you anyway, neither solution really works).
                                Well that's the beauty of owncloud, you can host it on your local network, and just route it through that like you would rsync, but I can understand that... I'm very much not a fan of the cloud myself although I'm indifferent to syncing versus other techniques. The main problem with Convergence is that usually people like you are talking about going down to using the cellphone that everyone is carrying around. The problem with that is that cell phones are a very small profile and thus the amount of heat that the chips are able to produce is a similarly small amount and as a result your entire system is heat constrained. Therefore while your performance might be fine for netbook type tasks I don't exactly want to be compiling large projects on it, which means that with such a device I can't do my job, because well I need to compile large projects and I don't have all day for this: http://xkcd.com/303/. To fix this you can bring in the cloud.... but did I mention I didn't like the cloud?
                                Last edited by Luke_Wolf; 08-29-2013, 12:21 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X