Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

MonoDevelop vs. Xamarin Studio IDEs

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
    Yeah the same goes for Qt. They will rather spend the development time on fucking BLACKBERRYs than Linux hippie stuff. We all have to deal with Mono and Qt are the two sides of the same coin (which recently was dropped into a filthy toilet). Acceptance is the first step towards a cure.
    Dude, it's the most feature complete toolkit in the world, and the Linux version has EVERYTHING.

    In fact, almost everything is LGPL, and if it weren't it would be relicensed by force.

    You're whining about blackberry support taking away from Linux? Dude, it's the best-supported graphical ANYTHING on Linux.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
      Dude, it's the most feature complete toolkit in the world, and the Linux version has EVERYTHING.

      In fact, almost everything is LGPL, and if it weren't it would be relicensed by force.

      You're whining about blackberry support taking away from Linux? Dude, it's the best-supported graphical ANYTHING on Linux.
      A few years ago the Qt clown crowd promised "the next billion linux devices". Now the ambition is changed to "one million BLACKBERRY devices" Sorry but this a TOTAL FAIL!!

      And oh yeah please provide a LGPLed version of that commercial graph stuff. NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by directhex View Post
        There's a certain hilarity in the same people saying, simultaneously, "fuck Xamarin for not releasing stuff on Linux" and "fuck Xamarin we don't want their evil shit on my nice precious Linux, cross platform is for weenies". Same people, same time, diametrically opposed and irreconcilable positions.
        mm, and then we've got funkSTAR here trolling about Qt for some reason when this has nothing to do with Digia or Qt.

        While I'm disappointed that they're not supporting linux, and don't really understand why not when the maintenance and development cost should be essentially zero because the code should be the same, the way they're restructuring their licenses is a good thing. Under the previous licensing structure they were making money directly off of Xamarin.iOS and Xamarin.Android, which meant it'd be a snowballs chance in hell for them to opensource it. Now if I understand it correctly they're licensing their Xamarin addins (like the component store) + support, which means it's actually possible for the android and iOS ports to be opensourced, although I still don't really see it happening for the time being.

        What I'm kinda hoping for happening is for Microsoft to throw the rest of .NET under the Apache license (As they've slowly been doing) and throw their weight behind mono, and push for porting to other platforms under an open license, thus finally killing off Java once and for all. Since Java is a language I hate having to program in. Microsoft just happens to be in the perfect position to administer the final killing blow, while Oracle has been slowly strangling it.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
          Thank you for confirming that Qt is differing between customers. Just like the Mono dudes do.
          No, they do not differ between customers. They are simply licensing a proprietary piece of software based on Qt, a *very* common thing among software vendors. Actually, proprietary offerings built with Qt has been the main money driver for all the open development. One may of course disagree with the business model. I for one tend to agree with you that copyright transfer agreements are bad practice. Nevertheless, I think you are missing the big picture totally here. AFAIK, there is no way all KDE programmers will sign such agreements, I know I won't. Even if that succeeds, Digia will have to keep a very tight balance. Any sign of evil tactics will see Digia left in the dust, with the value of their copyright reduced to zero. We can thank Oracle for a splendid example of how to achieve that. You see there are very strong forces behind Qt that will not tolerate Digia misbehaving. The only force behind Mono seem to be Microsoft and the abundance of software vendors on the .net band-wagon.

          Regarding the Qt charts, there is already an open competitor for plotting. And it seems to be doing surprisingly well, considering the clumsy license the author put on it: http://qwt.sourceforge.net/index.html Actually, I am pretty sure Qt charts will go open source or die.

          In any case, please stop equating the Mono tragedy with Qt, it undermines an otherwise natural grievance. Moreover, jrch2k8 please refrain from ad-hominems, it only serves to weaken your argument, and you do have a strong case here.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Del_ View Post
            No, they do not differ between customers. They are simply licensing a proprietary piece of software based on Qt, a *very* common thing among software vendors. Actually, proprietary offerings built with Qt has been the main money driver for all the open development. One may of course disagree with the business model. I for one tend to agree with you that copyright transfer agreements are bad practice. Nevertheless, I think you are missing the big picture totally here. AFAIK, there is no way all KDE programmers will sign such agreements, I know I won't. Even if that succeeds, Digia will have to keep a very tight balance. Any sign of evil tactics will see Digia left in the dust, with the value of their copyright reduced to zero. We can thank Oracle for a splendid example of how to achieve that. You see there are very strong forces behind Qt that will not tolerate Digia misbehaving. The only force behind Mono seem to be Microsoft and the abundance of software vendors on the .net band-wagon.

            Regarding the Qt charts, there is already an open competitor for plotting. And it seems to be doing surprisingly well, considering the clumsy license the author put on it: http://qwt.sourceforge.net/index.html Actually, I am pretty sure Qt charts will go open source or die.

            In any case, please stop equating the Mono tragedy with Qt, it undermines an otherwise natural grievance. Moreover, jrch2k8 please refrain from ad-hominems, it only serves to weaken your argument, and you do have a strong case here.
            thx for remind me of qwt, i totally forgot to put it in my post.

            sorry for the ad-moninems but weak/baseless trolling make my blood boil

            for funktroll
            1.)for the sake of continuity Qt Charts is an external product and digia was developing it before they acquired Qt like many other commertial software around that uses Qt as foundation(Qt charts is easy troll candy for the coincidence that digia that used to make commercial Qt software actually buyed Qt)

            2.) there is no such thing as Blackberry Qt(OMG) but an port of Qt to QNX(the actual OS for god sakes get at least your facts straight) that blackberry decided to use/incorporate in their blackberry product(like megoo or tizen) trying to use an very popular and well tested API that many developers are already familiar and comfortable with, so they can attract developers to their store fast(they need a strong app ecosystem to even have a chance against android/ios killer combo). The actual mobile code that is in Qt today and blackberry is actually taking advantage now comes from Nokia(before the current troy horse CEO) and as far as i can see any LGPL/commercial Qt Apps can basicaly be recompiled and run in BB 10/android/ios{ovbiously if you use non Qt code or ASM you need to port it to ARM/QNX equivalents}. Ofc i havent done a full review of BB SDK but i expect only minors higher level classes outside Qt{but Qobject based} to handle phone specific bindings(accelerometrs/rotation/gyroscope/etc)

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by jrch2k8 View Post
              thx for remind me of qwt, i totally forgot to put it in my post.

              sorry for the ad-moninems but weak/baseless trolling make my blood boil

              for funktroll
              1.)for the sake of continuity Qt Charts is an external product and digia was developing it before they acquired Qt like many other commertial software around that uses Qt as foundation(Qt charts is easy troll candy for the coincidence that digia that used to make commercial Qt software actually buyed Qt)

              2.) there is no such thing as Blackberry Qt(OMG) but an port of Qt to QNX(the actual OS for god sakes get at least your facts straight) that blackberry decided to use/incorporate in their blackberry product(like megoo or tizen) trying to use an very popular and well tested API that many developers are already familiar and comfortable with, so they can attract developers to their store fast(they need a strong app ecosystem to even have a chance against android/ios killer combo). The actual mobile code that is in Qt today and blackberry is actually taking advantage now comes from Nokia(before the current troy horse CEO) and as far as i can see any LGPL/commercial Qt Apps can basicaly be recompiled and run in BB 10/android/ios{ovbiously if you use non Qt code or ASM you need to port it to ARM/QNX equivalents}. Ofc i havent done a full review of BB SDK but i expect only minors higher level classes outside Qt{but Qobject based} to handle phone specific bindings(accelerometrs/rotation/gyroscope/etc)
              Update seems that BB introduced an extension(Cascades) for Qt quick that do the same thing but faster[aka Blob optimized render VS Qt GLES renderer that normally is horridly bugged in mobile drivers]

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Del_ View Post
                No, they do not differ between customers. They are simply licensing a proprietary piece of software based on Qt, a *very* common thing among software vendors. Actually, proprietary offerings built with Qt has been the main money driver for all the open development. One may of course disagree with the business model. I for one tend to agree with you that copyright transfer agreements are bad practice. Nevertheless, I think you are missing the big picture totally here. AFAIK, there is no way all KDE programmers will sign such agreements, I know I won't.
                Thanks for confirming that Digia uses open core Busine$$ to capitalize. Please repeat to the those who wont accept this simple FACT.

                Now back to business; You say you tend to agree about the license(not copyight) transfer. Well here is news for you; KDAB is fucking KDE. By the "great works on framework5" they are transfering former KDE-lib stuff into Qt. And you know what a that means. Going into Qt is saying byebye to copyleft because of the Qt contributor license. So right now everybody in KDE is cheering for frameworks5 which really are just shady skunkworks5 to decopyleftize(nice word, cant be googled) KDE. Digia likes this and KDAB likes this. Yuck!

                Comment


                • #23
                  I backup everything that FunkSTAR says and he is not trolling. Only copyright owner can assign a license and copyright transfer agreement, in any form, allow to control the entire contributed block of code and assign any license.

                  While this is not problematic for Qt as a library (libraries should ideally dynlink to anything) to be in essence *BSD licensed, it is highly problematic for anything non-library and in fact, results in ability to exploit GPL completely removing it.

                  The only positive thing, is that Dignia either ensures that the code is LGPLed, or it gets payed for allowing closed source license. Both ways exclude a possibility of zerocost closed down project fork without paying Dignia for that. That is not possible with *BSD license.

                  That, of course, goes in contrast with original motivation behind GPL - to be able to always prove and improve the source code one is running, no matter what financial model is used to create the code.

                  So, basically what you want to do, if you support freedom software rather than opencore/shareware, is to publish your contribution under "Latest available GPL license" and never sign any copyright transfer agreements.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Of course he's trolling.

                    He's using tons of BSD-licensed software on his computer: OpenSSH, X.org, the whole graphics stack, etc., which is even worse for copyleft than Qt's situation, yet he doesn't bla bla bla bla bla about that all the time, 100% of the time.

                    He's just getting people riled up with outrageous half-truths, a classic troll.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                      He's just getting people riled up with outrageous half-truths, a classic troll.
                      So regarding stuff going from KDE into Qt; I state that former LGPL KDE lib code redone by KDAB and transfered to Qt looses it copyleft when the Qt contributor license is signed.
                      NON-TRUTH, HALF-TRUTH or PURE-TRUTH?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
                        So regarding stuff going from KDE into Qt; I state that former LGPL KDE lib code redone by KDAB and transfered to Qt looses it copyleft when the Qt contributor license is signed.
                        NON-TRUTH, HALF-TRUTH or PURE-TRUTH?
                        Half-truth, obviously.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                          Half-truth, obviously.
                          And why doesnt it qualify as a PURE-TRUTH? You might not like the messenger still you have obligations to back your claims. Unless of course you are just trolling to avoid the facts; KDEs copyleft is being stripped down.
                          Last edited by funkSTAR; 02-21-2013, 07:28 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
                            And why doesnt it qualify as a PURE-TRUTH?
                            Because it will still be available under the LGPL. What changed is that it will ADDITIONALLY be available under a closed license.

                            This is unfortunate, but still much preferable to the BSD license, IMHO.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                              Because it will still be available under the LGPL. What changed is that it will ADDITIONALLY be available under a closed license.
                              Which is the same as loosing copyleft. Bummer

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
                                Which is the same as loosing copyleft. Bummer
                                No, it isn't, but you already know this and are only trolling.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X