-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Monday 17 February 2003 11:25, Johnny Stork wrote: > Hmm, is this true?
not in my experience. most software houses writing closed source software can afford the licensing costs and those costs are more than made up for by the quality of the Qt library (which translates directly to lower development costs), the absolute ease and guarantee of natively-targetted cross platform development and the tech support provided by TT. to go about another way, name the proprietary apps that use Gtk+. the number that use Qt are quite large. the Linux PDA market is largely a Qt one right now with both Zaurus and IBM using it as their reference and production platforms in that space. i've also worked with a few people here in Calgary that do closed development with Qt and am writing an article on an industrial manufacturing company in the states who writes all their internal software using KDE (which means using Qt as well). so, no, i don't think Qt's dual licensing is a set back. if nothing else, it ensures that Qt will still be around and has a lot of very qualified full time developers working on it. if Qt was hampering close source devel, Trolltech would be in dire straits financially instead of doubling their income every year for the last four years and we wouldn't see the immense amount of closed devel around it. i really, really take exception to the author's claim that GNOME is cleaner, newer and less bloated. apparently he has never coded with either environment, and i really don't know what he means by "newer". his next statement that the most important OSS projects are released for or will be ported to GNOME is also bullshit. if he's referring to Open Office, he ought to talk to the Open Office and the GNOME developers who have publicly given up on that task a long time ago. otherwise, if he believes that Evolution, Galeon or Nautilus are the most important apps, he's less clueful than a rock; they aren't even best of breed. or maybe he doesn't understand the distinction between a GNOME app and a Gtk+ app. GIMP is not a GNOME app, it's a Gtk app. Pan isn't a GNOME app any longer, it's a Gtk+ app. this author oversells GNOME (but that's nothing new) and completely FUDs KDE (but that's nothing new either). this is just echoes of a very old and stupid flame war that was started by trolls (hello Miguel) and continued by ignorants. this author and those like him are doing more to disrupt and destroy the future of desktop Linux with his writing than any licensing issue ever could. > Do people consider this to be an important, and > potentially "commercial-distro-choice-impacting" issue? look at which distros commercial entities are picking. what do you think? btw, i recently heard of a multi-1000s desktop license purchase by the Hilton hotel chain from Xandros. exciting times! > And please be open minded and as objective as possible. like the author? here's an irony: GNOME starts up because KDE wasn't Free enough for them. now certain GNOME supporters state that GNOME is better because it supports free-as-in-beer closed development while KDE encourages Free development over closed. not only is this ironic, but it demonstrates a lack of understanding regarding commercial software development, namely: people pay for their tools. > In order for Linux and Open Source to > succeed as a true paradigm-shift in the software/computer industry or a > legitimate disruptive-technology, commercial acceptance and some sort of > working relationship with closed-source, propietary systems is critical > (IMHO). i agree. and i don't think such a schism exists. - -- Aaron J. Seigo GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43 KDE: The 'K' is for 'kick ass' http://www.kde.org http://promo.kde.org/3.1/feature_guide.php -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+UTO91rcusafx20MRAot2AJ96RHpCxkajxNgbZXrqOJq1qxH8egCeKRtm 4oHhekSXuadDQob1yIfK++4= =RkeI -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
