GNOME & Intel Developers Plan The Wayland Future

[erendorn]

You seem to forget the legal agreement is no threat to Digia. All they need to do is making a yearly release. It is so easy they can do it with a cronjob. And what happens if they fail? After a three months notification time KDE can do a relicense for the free editon only on desktop linux. That is it. That is as weak as it gets. The agreement was not done to protect freedom, it was red herring tactics. And you Sir is dragging it. A pig is still a pig even if you add lip stick or "legal agreements".

With or without the agreement, the current code is and will remain LGPL. Nothing can happen to any FOSS application already using Qt. So what should we be afraid of?
The worst that could happen is that KDE could stop having Digia's paid contributors improving the toolkit they use. Wow. They certainly would have been better without these contributors from the start anyway, right?

Both GTK+ and Qt are LGPL, and Qt is arguably better. So can you remind us where freedom has lost?

[danielnez1]

You still haven't read and understood the agreement!! The agreement doesn't cover "Linux", only Linux for X. Embedded Linux sans X is EXCLUDED. Stop spreading FUD.

Perhaps you should read the definition of FUD first. If that is the best you can do then clearly you have run out of steam with your dubious arguments yet again.

[kigurai]

Making references to agreements you don't understand is FUD.

No, that would be general ignorance. FUD is to knowingly and maliciously spread disinformation to cause fear. Like what a lot of GNOME haters usually do.

But then you guys are back to discussing semantic details again, which is not particularly interesting

[danielnez1]

Sorry, but you need to read and understand the free Qt agreement. Making references to agreements you don't understand is FUD.

I may have been implicitly of saying "Linux" when I meant "Desktop Linux" or "Linux with X" or whatever else, but you need to nitpick just proves that you don't have much of a compelling argument.

Given Qt's widespread usage and your personal concerns with it, perhaps you should hire a lawyer in order to satisfy your concerns, but otoh your assertion that Intel is in fact a front to GNOME in post 136 would probably be far more juicy, especially if it is proven to be true.

[energyman]

Like what? As a user I have never really experienced it. And I've been using Gnome for a quite a long time.
.

and as a user you don't notice and or care what backend KDE is using for sound.

That was easy, wasn't it?

[energyman]

Not true. Stating that some "agreements" saves the day is the U and D in FUD. Second world was believed by some not to happen, because Von Ribbentrop signed agreements not to attack. That was FUDdy to believe and make others believe it as well.

and you read the 'agreement'?

QT is under GPLv3 and LGPLv2.1 if Digia does something stupid everybody can fork it.

gtk on the other hand....

[Awesomeness]

Name calling just reflects poorly on you.

And your stupid comments reflect poorly on your employer.

Because Intel and Collabora is Gnome.

No, Intel is Intel and Collabora is Collabora.

KDE bailed and went NIHy. Instead KDE went for Phonon so they could use what ever media framework they wanted. Today it is quite evident that Gstreamer was the right bet.

1.) Writing a wrapper ensuring that binary compatibility is kept is not NIH.
2.) Phonon allows me to use VLC instead of GStreamer because GStreamer is a steaming pile of shit.

Why is it that KDE hit these ABI/API problems in gstreamer (which I failed to find any reference to, maybe my Google-fu is weak) but GNOME doesn't?

Gnome simply declared that breaking ABI/API is no problem, just as Gnome declared that deprecating and replacing functions in GTK 3 is no problem.
GStreamer 0.10 and GStreamer 1.0 simply are incompatible.

I always find it funny how Gnome people state how stupid KDE was for not using GStreamer directly and instead should've used GStreamer directly. These are the same people who are defending the Telepathy wrapper over using libpurple directly. As if Pidgin wasn't a nice messenger?

[Krejzi]

and as a user you don't notice and or care what backend KDE is using for sound.

That was easy, wasn't it?

But in GNOME you do? That's interesting ...

[kigurai]

and as a user you don't notice and or care what backend KDE is using for sound.

That was easy, wasn't it?

I don't know what you were replying to. My quote was about things that break in GNOME, not about Phonon backends.

Gnome simply declared that breaking ABI/API is no problem, just as Gnome declared that deprecating and replacing functions in GTK 3 is no problem.
GStreamer 0.10 and GStreamer 1.0 simply are incompatible.

Can you point out specific breakages? As a user I have not noticed anything.
And why are you surprised that two major versions of a library are incompatible? Isn't that exactly how it always works?

[Krejzi]

really? because you know - phonon just works.

Unlike gstreamer.

I still don't get why GStreamer doesn't work. I've been reading this thread over and over again and I didn't find yet a signle proof why it doesn't work.
If it didn't, I doubt projects such as WebkitGTK or Mozilla's Xulrunner would use it as A/V backend.

You can also play va-api accelerated videos on Weston with it (haven't found anything else that works).