KDE Should Be Fully Running On Wayland Next Summer

[phoen1x]

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.

[prodigy_]

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?

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_%28framework%29#Licensing

Sorry, I don't know how a fact of reality can be a "topic" or how it can be discussed.

[LinuxGamer]

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

[Hamish Wilson]

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.

[Ericg]

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_%28framework%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.

[LinuxGamer]

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?

[Ericg]

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.

[Ericg]

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.

[LinuxGamer]

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

[TheBlackCat]

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.