GNOME & Intel Developers Plan The Wayland Future

[TheBlackCat]

What the fuck do you mean?

*sigh* Do I really need to spell it out for you? gstreamer depends on gvfs.

Up to now I only see empty stuff from you

Then you aren't reading very carefully, since in the post directly before the one you are quoting here I posted more than a half dozen examples.

[TheBlackCat]

While in real life, gtk makes this possible by providing x settings and standardizing on this. Things we talked about between KDE/Qt and Gtk+ maintainers.

Yes, you can make your own gtk theme that looks like a Qt theme, but there is no native support for Qt themes in gtk like there is support for gtk themes in Qt.

[TheBlackCat]

Looking at those claims made in the links confirms that Gnome did what was right. Saying no is not NIH, if what is offered is wrong or bad.

KDE has, multiple times in the past, accepted technologically inferior Gnome specs just for the sake of compatibility (dbus is an example).

But gnome has outright rejected patches for a spec supported by pretty much every other FOSS desktop environment for the explicit reason that want to force developers to use their own incompatible spec. And it isn't just that they refused to abandon their own spec, despite the fact that KDE has done so multiple times (and KDE's spec in this case came first), they refused to support the spec in parallel with their own spec.

[Awesomeness]

KDE got fooled last time

Hahahaha. Yeah, KDE got fooled because Canonical adopted a KDE spec? RIGHT!
You Gnomes did such a heroic thing by blocking StatusNotifier from becoming a fdo spec?

So what? Qt is as horrible as MIR when it comes to contributor agreements. Accepting such agreements is not something to take lightly.

Nobody needs to accept any CLA to use it with applications.
MySQL/MariaDB also have CLAs but IIRC unlike Qt are not protected by KDE Free Qt Foundation. I see no one bitching about MariaDB and oh, Gnome applications like Gnome-DB support MySQL/MariaDB despite CLA?

Gnome is NIH in perfection. You denying it does not make your "Gnome does not do NIH, we just reject everything else because everybody but us is wrong" statements correct.

If Qt's CLA is the only downside, Gnome could easily fork it or alternatively ? because Qt is highly modular ? develop Qt modules without upstreaming them (QtWebKit is a popular example of an external Qt module).

I get your frustration. Since years more and more projects are leaving GTK for Qt. First Nokia bought Trolltech because paying for Qt's developer was cheaper than making GTK good. Later former Gnome ally Canonical started to move away from GTK. Linus Torvald?s own Subsurface tool migrates from GTK to Qt. LXDE migrates from GTK to Qt. Qt is everywhere from cars to phones to PCs to tablets.
GTK OTOH is so bad, not even Gnome Shell is written in GTK ? except some minor uses for integrating GS with the rest of Gnome, GS is written in its own Clutter-based toolkit because even Gnome people know how insufficient GTK is.

Thank God, Gnome is the place to be when developing Wayland and it is happening at GUADEC right now.

1.) Keep your imaginary bearded man on a cloud at home.
2.) Wayland is the place for developing Wayland.
3.) You mean the GUADEC that maybe is the last? http://ploum.net/the-last-guadec/

[erendorn]

It might be good enough for KDE to be a consumer of Qt and bending to what ever Qt decides. Gnome has higher standards and they need something where they can work upstream. NIHy stuff like contributor agreements and tight control is a downer. And KDE Free Qt is a weak as it gets. You can do nothing about Qt going their own way and release software which is worse for KDE as long as Qt remembers to do an annual release.

Sorry what exactly would prevent Qt to be forked, if Digia "went their own way"? How would KDE be prevented from using the past contributions to Qt?

[danielnez1]

NIHy stuff like contributor agreements and tight control is a downer.

Why don't you have a whinge about Red Hat's CLA while you are at it then?

KDE keeps trailing Gnome on contributors. KDE is staring into the abyss now.

They seem to be doing ok to me. Anyhow, if it wasn't for Red Hat propping the shack up, I'm sure GNOME would be becoming irrelevant far quicker then it is now.

[TheBlackCat]

Are you saying Gnome should bend because some KDE feel like they are bending too much?

No, I am saying Gnome should bend because sometimes cooperation requires a little flexibility. "My way or the highway" is not cooperation.

And, as I pointed out, it isn't just KDE vs. Gnome, Qt puts much more effort into being compatible with gtk than gtk does in being compatible with Qt.

They do not control Qt, they have to adapt to what ever Qt thinks is right.

Oh really? Then I am sure you can name some examples where Qt forced KDE devs to do anything they didn't want to do.

[TheBlackCat]

Which license would you use to do the fork?

The same license it is already under: dual-licensed LGPL and GPL.

[danielnez1]

To my knowledge no such software is needed for a standard desktop. But please do share some info.

Red Hat did and still do use CLAs for various products, including Fedora:

http://www.freeipa.org/images/2/2b/GenericCLA.pdf
http://research.cs.wisc.edu/htcondor...CLA-PUBLIC.pdf
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal...utor_Agreement

It would seem that CLAs are a "necessary evil" for companies who work with Open Source software.

[RahulSundaram]

Red Hat did and still do use CLAs for various products, including Fedora:

http://www.freeipa.org/images/2/2b/GenericCLA.pdf

http://research.cs.wisc.edu/htcondor/licenses/CLA-PUBLIC.pdf

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Fedora_Project_Contributor_Agreement

It would seem that CLAs are a "necessary evil" for companies who work with Open Source software.

Actually, no. CLA in the sense of copyright assignment is not used by any of the Red Hat projects (except for Cygnus) last I checked. If you read say the Fedora agreement, it is *very* explicit about not requiring you to assign any copyright to Red Hat.