Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Qt LTS Releases To Be Restricted To Commercial Customers, Other Commercial Changes

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

  • dragon321
    replied
    Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post

    Because a lot of GTK3 programs look like Gnome 3 programs regardless of the desktop environment they're used on.
    Especially MATE or Cinnamon desktop? Some examples?
    Last edited by dragon321; 02-01-2020, 05:28 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • mulenmar
    replied
    Originally posted by tildearrow View Post

    This suddenly becomes a perennial battle for dream graphical interface style guidelines.
    Well, if people would stop being insistently wrong, there wouldn't be a battle. ....bahahahaha, sorry, I couldn't resist.

    Honestly, I find that I prefer themes that hybridize the two approaches -- using levels and lines where they help, and nowhere else. Even my stance on animations is probably seen as a naïve opinion or funny "betrayal" by some on both sides...

    Anyway, this debate is part of why more popular GUI toolkits have theme support, when we could free up once-considerable resources and save code if we just stuck to one true look. FLTK is aimed at low-resource machines, so (to my hazy recollection) it eschews the theme support and tries to blend in with older software.

    At least it's not https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motif_(software), right?

    Leave a comment:


  • tildearrow
    replied
    Originally posted by mulenmar View Post

    I happen to like that beveled design, it guides the eye where you're supposed to look. The only problem I have is the choice of color-limited pallets that era had.

    Animations are mostly a distraction that takes up CPU/GPU cycles, video RAM, and electricity, anyway. It's a ****-measuring contest to show how much you can afford to waste. Give me a very short minimize and maximize animation to indicate the program didn't simply crash, that's all that is needed.
    This suddenly becomes a perennial battle for dream graphical interface style guidelines.

    Leave a comment:


  • mulenmar
    replied
    Originally posted by tildearrow View Post

    ...but freaking CSD.
    So? The only thing I've ever seen benefit from CSD is a web browser, to free up a dozen or two pixels' worth of vertical space.

    "Decorating" should be the window manager's job.

    Maybe I just have a misunderstanding of what it's supposed to do, but given what I've seen GNOME do with it -- shoving entire menus into a drop-down menu the top bar where they take longer to get to -- I'm left cold.

    Originally posted by tildearrow View Post

    This toolkit is horrible! It still uses the ancient bezeled design that dates from the '90's, and does not even support animations or stuff like that.
    Heck, even the website still uses HTML4 and they use images for the corners!
    I happen to like that beveled design, it guides the eye where you're supposed to look. The only problem I have is the choice of color-limited pallets that era had.

    Animations are mostly a distraction that takes up CPU/GPU cycles, video RAM, and electricity, anyway. It's a ****-measuring contest to show how much you can afford to waste. Give me a very short minimize and maximize animation to indicate the program didn't simply crash, that's all that is needed.

    As for the website, so what? It works, and doesn't have any tracking crap afaik, enough Javascript to fill a floppy disk, or a million Wordpress and PHP bugs.

    An elegant weapon, for a more civilized age...

    ...okay, yeah, even I'm no fan of images-for-layout. Uses unnecessary data.

    Originally posted by madscientist159 View Post
    ...completely unworkable "solutions" along the lines of either no copyright at all or a mandate for source release for all computer programs.
    The latter sounds perfectly workable to me. You want your program hosted or installed in hardware anywhere, to be bought, used, or traded? Part of your payment is your source code, under a license requiring changes to be sent to the devs under the same (A)GPL-type terms

    It's one of those things I feel Stallman is too conservative on, along with not pushing for hardware specs to be open too. I don't blame him, it's hard enough to break as far out of the cycle of exploitation as he did for someone raised and educated in it.
    Last edited by mulenmar; 01-28-2020, 09:19 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • carewolf
    replied
    Originally posted by ddriver View Post

    It was more of a rebranding really, in an attempt to disassociate with the bad rep
    You give the board of Digia way too much credit in how much they care about their reputation in Open Source circles. I doubt they were even aware of any of the scandals. You could call it rebranding though, but to a completely different group of people: Investors. It was apparently split off to get higher stock prices as product companies (like The Qt Company) are often valued higher than service companies (like Digia). In any case, they are separate companies now, they might share share holders, but one doesn't own or control the other.

    Leave a comment:


  • ddriver
    replied
    Originally posted by Nth_man View Post
    More than a year has passed, but some things haven't changed for "ddriver":

    I think the only troll here is you.
    -- Upvoted 6 times at least: https://www.phoronix.com/forums/foru...86#post1063086
    Seek them out and give them medals for upvoting a response that is clearly the product of failing to understand, as "trolls" in that post clearly refers to the original Trolltech company that initially developed Qt.

    Also, why would my opinions on digia shift towards the positive for no reason? They did nothing positive to warrant such a change. What's your definition of personal development? Turn from a critic to a fanboi of a lousy company in a year for no valid reason whatsoever or something like that?
    Last edited by ddriver; 01-28-2020, 12:39 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • frank007
    replied
    Originally posted by darkcoder View Post
    This is going to negatively affect some projects or distro releases that relied on it.

    Each distribution backporting their own QT LTS will be a nightmare from manpower to compatibility between distributions.

    The options:
    1. Each distro adopting the LTS support burden.
    2. KDE Project absorbing QT LTS maintenance.
    3. Distributions dropping KDE/QT for LTS releases.
    4. While porting for QT6, code a home brew replacement.

    #2 will be the more stable and friendly imo. KDE Community to take the burden and tie QT with KDE and released closely tied together at least for plasma LTS releases. # 1 will bring too much headache for distributions, many of them will do #3 and not think twice and drop KDE from LTS spins just for the work involved.

    For a long term solution, #4. But please no forking of QT. With MySQL and MariaDB “drop in” compatibility B crap I have enough.
    It's a natural fact. Every time a commercial company gains some kind of success after the someone else work, they decide for a whatever reason to make pay they products. It's natural and happens continuously. The mistake is thinking this never can happen to me. Kde, Xfce and all the rest should think to a free (as in freedom) and open source solution. A nonprofit organization for a better and free gui libs is necessary in my opinion. And the clauses should not permit to sell all the main component for the community that all distros use to commercial companies.
    (I know my English is so so, I'm Italian)

    Leave a comment:


  • Nth_man
    replied
    More than a year has passed, but some things haven't changed for "ddriver":

    I think the only troll here is you.
    -- Upvoted 6 times at least: https://www.phoronix.com/forums/foru...86#post1063086

    Leave a comment:


  • ddriver
    replied
    Originally posted by carewolf View Post

    Qt was split off from Digia a few years back to its own company called "The Qt Company". I guess there just weren't any synergies in having Digia's consultancy and Qt's product development in the same company (plus apparently the stock holders had a good day as TQC ended up with a higher price on its than under Digia)
    It was more of a rebranding really, in an attempt to disassociate with the bad rep

    Leave a comment:


  • carewolf
    replied
    Originally posted by moilami View Post
    Investigated a bit and found that Qt is owned by Digia nowadays, which is a Finnish corporation. OS is not a bit of their area of expertise and the company makes most of its money on state funded establishments, meaning they only exist as is because "friends will be friends". Major hostility can be expected by them towards OS assets, of which this was the first step.
    Qt was split off from Digia a few years back to its own company called "The Qt Company". I guess there just weren't any synergies in having Digia's consultancy and Qt's product development in the same company (plus apparently the stock holders had a good day as TQC ended up with a higher price on its than under Digia)

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X