Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 82

Thread: Ubuntu 14.04 Looks Toward Qt 5.2, Qt Mir In 14.10

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Honton View Post
    Not according to Digia. Windows is a huge market to Qt and any commit hitting Qt MUST take windows and other non-free platforms into account. that is how you do business when you provide a commrcial frame work.
    So please show us commits that were rejected because they didn't take Windows or other platforms into account. If you can't you have just busted yourself.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    213

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheBlackCat View Post
    Honton is a notorious troll who will say anything, even blatantly lie, to trash any DE other than Gnome. He has a handful of talking points he uses to derail any thread even remotely related to any DE other than Gnome into a flamefest.
    I was mentioning Vim_User, not Honton.

    Quote Originally Posted by sarmad View Post
    Gnome won't die anytime soon, not until someone makes a DE that is more usable and more customizable. Gnome has lost a lot of its existing users who are used to the more traditional kind of desktops, but the new generation of users will find Gnome to be the most productive desktop environment, especially after customizing it to your needs from the pool of hundreds of existing extensions. Also, Gnome is currently progressing at a pace faster than other environment. The only point I have against Gnome 3 is the use of web technologies (CSS, Javascript) which makes it slow and heavy.

    You are very funny, really! Gnome did lost a lot of customizability these days, that's why Cinnamon and MATE happened.

    Do you mean the new generation of users are going to be smarter? So you hate experienced users, I see. Do you have any idea what "productive" is in a computing environment? These days computer users are less skilled and more used to crappy software than before, they lack patience and knowledge to find suitable software for many tasks (unless they are a bit passionate about computers). And people aren't so used to waste HOURS finding those damn extensions in Gnome, it's way for more difficult to install them than in Firefox.

    What's progressing at a faster pace? I see MANY projects migrating from GTK to Qt.

    KDE had many really bad practices like releasing an UNSTABLE version as final software, (4.0) and I got lots of problems when using it on many systems I maintain. They also have stuff like nepomuk, that eats lots of I/O and can make the system unusable.

    KDE is the lesser problem about Digia, maybe they get a bit of individual contributors and such. But their success is on propietary platforms and it's going to be that way for a lot of time.

    What I see, both KDE and Gnome are inefficient and lack standarization in many ways (KIO vs GIO, kdewallet vs gnome-keyring, phonon vs gstreamer...). That's good for more lightweight and flexible competitors, like XFCE. The problem is that "complete" solutions are blind and only look to their own environment, and are quite bloated too. It's a shame to not see a lightweight competitor to Evince and Okular in XFCE, for example (there should be a proper framework to read documents and that code shared between major apps). I just hope Freedesktop.org effort gets stronger and standarize a lot more parts of the desktop ecosystem.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Honton View Post
    No. The Qt upstream is CLAed. Even KDE have to sign the CLA, beause Digia won' accept GPL.
    total bullshit
    you don't have to sign CLA to use Qt
    you don't have to sign the CLA to fork Qt
    that's why there is an agreement between KDE foundation and Nokia and later Digia
    there is the KDE Free Qt Foundation that protect the freedom of Qt
    Qt project uses many KDE contributions and Digia can't just ignore them when attempting to close the code
    the free sofwatre version of Qt will remain free and independent

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    240

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by timofonic View Post
    You are very funny, really! Gnome did lost a lot of customizability these days.
    Gnome lost a lot of usability , not just customization.

    , that's why Cinnamon and MATE happened
    And Unity ... damn! at least 3 forks , 4 gnome desktops. Gnome 3, what a disaster .

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Honton View Post
    you quoted me on the very topic on contributing to Qt. And that requires CLA.
    yes
    but many Qt framework contributors and approvers are active within KDE project. Many Qt project modules are developed and maintained by KDE contributors. Digia can't take the risk of closing the code, they would loose many active conrtibutors and maintainers within the Qt project itself and the KDE Qt Foundation can continue the development of the free version of Qt. There is a interdependency and close relationship between the two projects and there is a legal aggreement protecting the freedom of Qt

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    329

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Honton View Post
    Not according to Digia. Windows is a huge market to Qt and any commit hitting Qt MUST take windows and other non-free platforms into account. that is how you do business when you provide a commrcial frame work.
    So from your point of view it is bad to take money for a good product? To take money for open source software is evil? Did I get that right? Digia is commercial, so they are bad guys?
    How far would open source software be without paid developers and big firms with commercial interests in open source software?

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    329

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Honton View Post
    Making money on free software is not wrong. Making money from asymmetric licensing on a crucial part of the stack is wrong.
    why? ?

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Honton View Post
    Accepting Qt's CLA is no different than accepting Canonical's CLA.
    With this piece I agree wholeheartly. And there's nothing wrong with any.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    510

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by benalib View Post
    total bullshit
    you don't have to sign CLA to use Upstart/Mir/Unity
    you don't have to sign the CLA to fork Upstart/Mir/Unity
    I modified your post. It holds true if you change the software too. Let your any upstart/mir/unity. Hypocrite much?

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    431

    Default

    Ingoring the Honton wars and slightly more on topic...

    Why did Gnome take over development of GTK? I know that it was originally created for GIMP (it's the GIMP ToolKit) but I can't seem to find any articles or anything about Gnome taking it over...

    As for Ubuntu leaning more towards Qt, that's fine by me. I personally don't like the way Gnome manages GTK... I wish the Mint team would fork that too (Everything they've forked from Gnome has only gotten better :P). I think that GTK could potentially be huge and popular and awesome, but the way Gnome manages it is horrible...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •