Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Digia Looking At Windows WinRT Support In Qt 5.2

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

  • #11
    Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
    Eh... All indication is that Michael didn't really understand what WinRT meant. WinRT aka Windows Run Time is an API that is supported by both Windows Phone 8 and Windows 8/RT, and provides ability to do Metro apps.
    Thank you, make so much more sense. Also appears Micheal updated the article.
    It's also the fault of MS and their dumb naming.

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by Honton View Post
      Yes, covering every closed source base out there. That is what you do when you priority is closed source and you want volume.
      They are a company who's advertised business is closes platform tools. They support and want to add many different platforms. Who would've thought!
      Qt has great Linux support and Wayland support. Why are you complaining. You want them to drop everything not Linux? How dumb.

      Comment


      • #13
        I doubt it's even possible without hitting the wall of patents.

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by Honton View Post
          You are on a linux centric forum. Expect to meet a few people caring about Linux and Freedom. im one of them.
          Caring for quality on linux is good.

          Wanting people to only support linux, saying any support for non-linux is bad, and non-linux platforms should burn and die is bad. 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".

          Comment


          • #15
            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.
            "You needn't love your enemy, but if you refrain from telling lies about him, you are doing well enough."
            - Ed Howe

            You can't even manage that much.

            Comment


            • #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

                      Working...
                      X